Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmi And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1746 of 2021(O&M) Date of Decision: October 11 , 2021.
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited ...... APPELLANT
Versus
Laxmi and others ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present:
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.
*****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** LISA GILL, J.
This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19. This appeal has been by the Insurance company challenging award dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat at Nuh (for short, the 'Tribunal').
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimants !" # $%&' ( # $ ) ' *& # # +,-./0./1 "
2
( .1 #
# 3 & # # +,-.
/14.// # 3
#&#
*
+
56
%#
*& 1 & 3 & ' " 3 & "3
' ( &7 89:+; <=-!" # >
?." & * &
>& & * &
" * 9
> * "&& 3
"
# 3 & * & # "
8 & # & @ & &&" #
/;A. B C & # 2&>
%& A-( '
-& ' 2 (
#&# 3 # 3 & # # +,-.
/14.// 3 *
+DE-- 9
+ 3 "
&
9 "
"
DE-- B
+ " 3 # 3&
3
3 # & &&#
+ 3&
&*D E-:. ; :& F @ &
& C & #&#
3 #
# 3 & # # +,-./14.// *
+.) 231 #&*9
+" 3 &
1 17,23,800/- was afforded to the claimants as
9 ! "
:
?. 9 = ;G "
56 2 ?/ "
& &/" & :
/?. " "
&=
&
:
;?." "
&
Present appeal has been filed by the Insurance company primarily assailing finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is an unexplained delay of five days in lodging of FIR in this case. Accident in question took place on 23.09.2018 whereas the FIR in question was registered on 28.09.2018. Moreover, the said FIR was lodged by PW2 Vishnu Gola, who was not an eye-witness of the accident. Furthermore, there are material discrepancies in the deposition of eye-witness, PW3 Raj Kumar and propounder of the FIR, PW2 Vishnu Gola. Therefore, learned Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its driver, respondent No.9-Varun Dev, resulting in the death of Hari Om @ Sonu son of Dhuli Chand.
Claimants, it is submitted, have failed to prove the same. No serious arguments have been raised insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned. It is prayed that this appeal be allowed and claim petition be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the file with his able assistance.
It is a matter of record that the accident took place on 23.09.2018. Hari Om @Sonu (deceased) after the accident was initially taken to the District Government Hospital by the police officials. Thereafter, he was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, but was taken to City Hospital, Mathura and then admitted in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Hari Om @ Sonu ultimately succumbed
5;6 to his injuries on 27.09.2018. It is thereafter that FIR No.482 (Ex.P2) was registered on 28.09.2018 at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Madhura. In this factual matrix, learned Tribunal has rightly held that the delay in lodging of the FIR is not fatal to the case of the claimants. Needless to say, family members would be more engrossed in trying to save the life of injured rather than be bothered about timely registration of FIR. Challan/final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.482 Dated 28.09.2018 was admittedly presented against respondent No.9-driver, who was facing trial in the said matter. Factum of the accident taking place on 23.09.2018 is succinctly borne out from the evidence on record. Recovery of both the motorcycles is a matter of record.
Owner and driver of the offending motorcycle did not step into the witness box. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any evidence on record to indicate collusion between the claimants and owner/driver of the offending vehicle. Furthermore, discrepancies sought to be highlighted in the statements of PW3 Raj Kumar and PW2 Vishnu Gola do not in any manner detract from the case of the claimants. The fact that FIR was not registered on the statement of eye-witness cannot be a ground to discard the claimants' case or presume the same to be incorrect, especially in view of the cogent and sufficient evidence which has been placed on record by the claimants.
Perusal of the statements of PW2 Vishnu Gola and PW3 Raj Kumar as well as their cross-examination, which have been duly reproduced in the grounds of appeal itself, in fact, buttress and substantiate the case of the claimants.
0 # 3"
3 &&#& * * # "
* & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat at Nuh" && *
5/6 * > No other argument has been raised.
1& #&*
" ! E H I Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No