The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Meeta Sharma & Ors.

1. An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company against the Award dated 03.06.2016 vide which the compensation in the sum of Rs.44,29,680/- along with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded to the Respondent No.1 and 2 on account of the demise of Dr. Manoj Kumar, aged 39 years, husband of Respondent No.1 Smt. Meeta Sharma.

2. The Insurance Company has challenged the Award on the following grounds: (i)the FIR in regard to the accident was recorded against the unknown vehicle after about one year on the statement of PW[3] Ashok Kumar; and

(ii) the Notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act was given to one Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, even though the registered owner of the vehicle was Shri Brahmanand.

3. It is argued there is no cogent explanation forthcoming as to why Shri Ashok Kumar the alleged eye witness approached the Police after one year. In fact, the number of the offending vehicle was not known as it was a “hit and run” case, but subsequently the alleged offending vehicle has been involved only for the purpose of claiming compensation.

4. It is further submitted that though PW[3] Ashok Kumar and PW[5] Sh. Surender Pandey who had taken the injured to the hospital have been examined, but from the circumstances as detailed, it is quite evident that it is not the genuine involvement of the offending vehicle. RW[1] Driver Chaman Lal was also examined, who denied having caused any accident.

5. It is further argued on behalf of the Insurance Company that PW[5] Shri Surender Pandey in his cross-examination, had admitted that he was not able to disclose if PW[3] Ashok Kumar was present on the spot. His testimony clearly reflects that PW[3] has been subsequently planted.

6. It is, therefore, submitted that there is false implication of the offending vehicle and the Claim Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel on behalf of the Claimants has explained that the FIR was registered in regard to the accident immediately thereafter, on the same day. The injured had been taken to the hospital by PW[5] Shri Surender Pandey. Moreover, PW[3] Shri Ashok Kumar was an eye witness who had chased the offending vehicle and had noted the number of the offending vehicle which he had given to PW[5] and thereafter, left the scene of incident. After about one year, he contacted PW[5] to enquire about the condition of the injured, when he was informed that the he had died. On a query by PW[3] about the number of the vehicle being disclosed to the Police, he was told that PW[5] Shri Surender Pandey had failed to do so. Consequently, he approached the Police and disclosed the number of the offending vehicle. Due investigation was carried out by the Police. A Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act was served on Satish Kumar who gave a statement that the registered owner was Brahmanand, but he had purchased the motor-cycle from him in February, 2007.

8. It is further submitted that PW[3], the eye witness had even deposed before the learned M.M in the Criminal Case. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence to conclude that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, Chaman Lal.

9. Submissions heard.

10. Briefly stated, on 12.04.2007 the victim Dr. Manoj Sharma while returning to his house from his hospital. When he reached near Khatta G.T. Karnal Road, he was hit by one motor-cycle bearing No.UP-15M-7657 which was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, Chaman Lal because of which he fell and suffered injuries. He was taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, but succumbed to his injuries.

11. In order to prove the factum of accident, the Claimants examined PW[3] Ashok Kumar as an eye witness to the accident. He in his testimony deposed that at about 11 P.M on the date of accident i.e. 12.04.2007 he was going towards Seelampur from Samaypur Badili on his Scooter No. DL- 5SL-6853 for supply of hardware goods. At about 11 P.M. when he reached T-point, G.T. Karnal Road, he saw the offending motor-cycle hitting Dr. Manoj Sharma. The Driver of the offending motor-cycle ran away. He tried to chase him, but because of heavy traffic, he was not able to catch him. He took the injured to the hospital in a TSR with help of some passenger whose name was disclosed as Surender Pandey.

12. PW[3] Shri Ashok Kumar has explained his presence on the spot, though he had approached the Police after one year but the Claimants have explained that was only because he subsequently made an inquiry and found out that the number of the offending vehicle which he had disclosed to PW[5] had not been mentioned to the Police.

13. PW[3] Sh. Ashok Kumar was duly cross-examined, wherein the witness reiterated that he was a witness to the accident, but there was nothing material that could be elicited from him.

14. The testimony of PW[3] is fully corroborated by PW[5] Shri Surender Pandey who has deposed in the Court on 31.03.2016 that about 8-9 years ago he saw one person lying on the road in injured condition. There was no vehicle near the spot. He took the injured to the BJRM hospital, and got him admitted. The Police made enquiries from him after about 2 months of the accident. There were several public persons who had gathered on the spot. He further deposed that he had taken the injured to the hospital on his own without being asked by the public persons. He did not know if any person by the name of Ashok was present on the spot.