United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sushil Kumar Sinha and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The United India Insurance Company Ltd. is aggrieved by the award dated 12.7.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge No. 15), Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The brief facts of the case are that according to the claimant No. 1 on 8.4.2010 around 9:00 P.M. his son, Manmeet Kumar Sinha, was riding a motorcycle along with his friend, Kailash Rawat. When the motorcycle reached in front of Prem Motors, another motorcycle, bearing registration No. RJ14-11M-2302, being driven rashly and negligently, came and collided with the motorcycle being driven by his son. Consequently, Manmeet suffered grievous injuries; he died in the hospital. Having lost their son, the claimants filed a claim petition. In order to support their case Sushil Kumar Sinha, claimant-respondent No. 1, examined himself as a witness, and submitted twenty-six documents. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, examined a single witness and submitted a single document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a single contention before this court: according to him, the first FIR lodged by Sushil Kumar clearly stated that the accident had taken place by an unknown vehicle. However, subsequently the insured vehicle, namely motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ14-11M-2302, was involved in the case. However, there is no explanation offered by the claimants as to how and when they came to know the actual number of the offending vehicle. Thus, according to the learned counsel it is a case of collusion between the claimants and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. According to him, the learned Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the case. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with.

Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned award.

A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that in the first FIR, lodged by Sushil Kumar, he did state that he was unaware of the number of the offending vehicle. However, and most importantly, in the second report filed by him, he did claim that after having cremated his son, he went back to the place of the accident, and inquired from the persons inhabiting there if any one knows the number of the offending vehicle. According to him, one Manager Yadav and Lal Dev Yadav revealed the number of the offending vehicle. It is in these circumstances that the second report submitted to the police does contain the number of the offending vehicle. Therefore, a cogent explanation has been given by Sushil Kumar.

Moreover, according to the learned Tribunal, in the notice given to the owner u/s 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner, Rajesh Agarwal had clearly informed the police that at the time of the accident his motorcycle was being driven by Dinesh Kumar Sharma. Subsequently, in reply to a notice sent to Dinesh Kumar Sharma, u/s 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he not only admitted that he had met with an accident in front of Prem Motors, but also claimed that as he was about to be assaulted by four or five persons, he ran away from the place of accident. Thus, fully knowing the consequences of such an admission still in response to the notice u/s 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Dinesh Kumar Sharma did make the said admission. It is in these circumstances that the learned Tribunal has rejected the contention raised by the Insurance Company about the claim petition being a collusive one.

Considering the fact that an admission by Dinesh Kumar Sharma would also make him liable for criminal cases, it is highly doubtful that a person would endanger his life only because the claimants have impressed upon him to collude with them. Thus, the theory of a collusive claim petition being filed not only defies logic, but is also against human nature. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel that a collusive claim petition had been filed, is clearly untenable. For the reasons stated above this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. This appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.