Mohan Lal vs Anant Ram and Kushal Kumar

Justice Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the owner of the vehicle is directed against the award dated 25.04.2006, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Una in M.A.C. Petition No. 48 of 2004, whereby he awarded compensation of ` 1,42,000/- in favour of the claimants, who are the husband and son of deceased, Smt. Yamuna Devi. The main challenge to the award is that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.

Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that Kushal Kumar, son of the deceased, is not telling the truth, since there are variations in what is recorded in the FIR and his statement made in Court. He submits that PW-4, Kadhu Ram, was not present at the time of accident and that the version of the respondent and his witness, Bakshish Singh (RW-2) is much more reliable and that no accident took place with the scooter. The stand of the appellant herein is that he saw Smt. Yamuna Devi lying injured and being her neighbour, he, on humanitarian grounds, arranged to have her shifted to hospital and now, he has been falsely implicated in the accident in question.

The facts which are not disputed are that Yamuna Devi met with a motor vehicle accident between 6.15 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on 12th November, 2003. Whereas according to the claimants, she was hit by the scooter being driven by the present appellant, Mohan Lal, the case of Mohan Lal is that, in fact, Yamuna Devi was hit by some unidentified Maruti van which sped away from the scene of the accident and with a view to get compensation, a false case was registered against the present appellant.

The FIR has been proved on record by PW-1. The lodging of FIR is not denied. The accident took place at 6.15 p.m. and the FIR was lodged within a few hours, at 10.25 p.m. Thus, it is apparent that the FIR was lodged about four hours after the accident. In the FIR, which is recorded on the complaint of Kushal Kumar, one of the claimants and son of the deceased, it is recorded that Yamuna Devi had gone to cut grass and she came home and informed her son, Kushal Kumar, that she had cut two loads of grass and, therefore, she went back to carry the grass and Kushal Kumar followed her and was about 20 feet behind her. He saw a Maruti van coming from Amb side and another scooter came at a high speed from Amb side, which scooter hit his mother. The scooter driver also fell down on the spot. He has further stated that later, he came to know that the scooter driver was Mohan Lal (appellant).

It is virtually the case of the parties that after Yamuna Devi fell down, a private vehicle was arranged and she was taken towards the hospital. Therefore, some time must have been spent doing this also. It is difficult to imagine that on that very day, within a few hours, the claimants, who are poor agriculturists, would cook up a false story just with a view to claim compensation. It is against human nature that on a day when a young man loses his mother, he would be more interested in getting the compensation.

The statement made by Kushal Kumar in Court by and large is similar to what is recorded in the FIR. However, he has made a material contradiction inasmuch as he denies that any Maruti van was there and he also states that he never made such statement to the police. This portion of the statement of Kushal Kumar cannot be believed, but this does not mean that his entire evidence and testimony has to be disbelieved.

Admittedly, Mohan Lal was a neighbour and there is no enmity between the parties. There is no reason why he would have been falsely implicated in the accident, if the accident had actually not taken place. No doubt, Bakshish Singh has given a conflicting statement, but another important fact which goes against Mohan Lal is that Soma Devi, who was admittedly present as per all the witnesses, was not examined at all.

Be that as it may, I am of the considered view that the statement of Kushal Kumar read with the FIR, which is the first report of the accident, clearly indicates that the accident had taken place with the scooter. Therefore, this point is decided against the appellant.

As far as the question of quantum of compensation is concerned, cross-objections have also been filed by the claimants. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the age of the claimants etc., I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and calls for no interference. In view of the above discussion, the appeal as well as the cross-objections are rejected. No costs.