1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 09.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 167 of 1981 so far as the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. It is the case of the appellants that on 06.10.1980 while Shri Yashvantsinh Narbhesinh was riding pillion on scooter bearing registration no. GRA 6043 belonging to and driven by one Gunvant Kalidas Patel. At that time a truck being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter as a result of which the Shri Yashvantsinh sustained injuries on various parts of the body and succumbed to those injuries. The appellants being legal heirs and representatives therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr. N.V. Solanki, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in dismissing the claim petition. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was as a result of his own rash and negligent driving.
4.1 Mr. Solanki further submitted that the insurance company has raised a defence that the deceased had no valid driving licence for driving the scooter and so the insurance company and the insured both are not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants and therefore the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company without the insurance company proving its case that the deceased was driving without any valid licence.
4.2 He further submitted that as the deceased was the original opponent no.1's employee at the relevant time and he sustained injuries and died due to the said injuries, the original opponent no. 1is liable to pay compensation to the appellants under the head of vicarious liability. He submitted that the tortious liability of the owner is established in view of Ex. 173 where the owner himself has admitted in the proceedings before NC No. 639 of 1980 (Complaint No. 54 of 1980) that he had handed over the scooter to a non-licensed person for which he was fined. In that view of the matter, the vicarious liability of the owner is established and therefore the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim petition and exonerating the insurance company and insured.
4.3 Mr. Solanki has also submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in relying upon the police report produced at Ex. 194. He has relied upon Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that the reliance on the police report is erroneous and therefore the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim of the appellants.
4.4 In support of his submissions, Mr. Solanki has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Others vs. M/s Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. and Another reported in 1977 ACJ 343.
(ii) Bishan Devi and Others vs. Sirbaksh Singh and another reported in AIR 1979 SC 1862.
(iii) Hazari Lal vs. The State (Delhi Admn.) reported in AIR 1980 SC 873.
(iv) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Haribhai Vallabhbhai Darji and Others reported in 1984 ACJ 72. (v)Narcinva V. Kamat and Another vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Others reported in 1985 ACJ 397. (vi)Digvijai Tewari vs. Rakesh Prasad Pathak and Others reported in 1987 ACJ 795.
(vii) Shankerlal vs. Shankerlal and others reported in 1988 ACJ 866.
(viii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Paro and others reported in 1995 ACJ 558.
(ix) Sukhar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 29.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has fairly come to the conclusion that the deceased was driving the said scooter which is borne out from the records and due to his own negligent driving the accident in question happened. In support of the submissions, learned advocate has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Amthiben Maganlal Wd/o Maganlal Pranlal Mistry & Others vs. Supdt. Geophysicist, ONGC & Others reported in 1976(17) GLR 910.
(ii) United India Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Jagatsinh Valsinh and Others reported in 1986 GLH 573.
(iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Heirs & L.Rs. Of Hiteshbhai Sureshbhai Patel & Others reported in 2011(2) 1003.
6. Having heard the parties and having perused the records, the case of the appellants as pleaded by them seems to be quite amusing. It is the case of the appellants that the owner of the scooter who happened to be the employer of the deceased had come to the house of the deceased on 06.10.1980 and was carrying the deceased as a pillion rider on the scooter. It is the constant say of the oral version of witnesses that scooter was driven by opponent no. 1 at relevant time and deceased was sitting as pillion rider and that the said scooter dashed with the truck coming in excessive speed. This court finds it difficult to believe that the employer who stays at Navrangpura comes to the house of the employee-driver at Saraspur at around 9.00 p.m to pick the employee-driver and take him to his own house at Navrangpura. If Ex. 64 Entry No. 53/80 is perused, it is stated therein that as scooter skidded, the deceased sustained injuries. It is pertinent to note that there is no mention of the truck or any such story in the said entry. Even the time of the accident as stated by the witnesses does not match with the details in the entry.
6.1 Even from Ex. 63, the date of accident can be read as 06.10.1980 but the time is mentioned as 11.00 pm. The story of skidding of the scooter is also mentioned in the certificate issued by the hospital which is at Ex. 214 wherein the date of admission is shown as 07.10.1980 at 11.30 pm. A yadi produced along with the case papers reveals that the incident took place on 07.10.1980 and that the deceased was brought to the hospital on 07.10.1980 at around 2345 hours. Similarly the case papers along with the prescription bears indoor no. 16658 and the date as 07.10.1980. Thus it is clear that the accident happened at around 11.00 pm on 07.10.1980 and not at around 9.30 pm on 06.10.1980 as alleged by the appellants.
6.2 The Tribunal in para 26 of the impugned award has relied upon Ex. 194 which is a report of the incident made by the police, Shaher Kotda Police Station on 08.10.1980 wherein it is mentioned on behalf of the R.M.O of Shardaben Hospital that a patient named Jashwantsinh Narbhesinh aged 43 was driving scooter and slipped from his scooter bearing registration no. GRA 6042. He was admitted in the hospital by a pedestrian. There is no mention of the truck here or that the original opponent no. 1 was driving the said scooter.
7. Thereafter, panchnama was drawn by the police Ex. 195 dated 08.10.1980. The reply of deceased is at Ex. 196 which is very relevant. It is the statement of the deceased himself which does not state that the scooter was driven by original opponent no. 1. The deceased has stated that he went for his duty on 07.10.1980 and at about 09.15 pm he had dropped his employer at the employer's house at Navrangpura and was returning with his employer's scooter bearing registration no. GRA 6043 when he came near the place of incident while taking a turn, the scooter skidded and he sustained injuries. The deceased has not mentioned anything about the dashing of the truck with the scooter or that he was a pillion rider.
8. It is required to be noted that the appellants were not in a position to show from any of the documentary evidence that the scooter had dashed with a truck. There is no truck registration number produced to substantiate their claim. The Tribunal finally concluded that the alleged incident took place on 07.10.1980 and at relevant time scooter was driven by deceased himself and that he sustained injuries due to his own rash and negligent driving and therefore the original opponents are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
9. Considering the contradictions in the date and time of the accident and the absence of any proof with regard to the role of the truck and the original opponent no. 1 in the alleged accident, coupled with the very admission on the part of the deceased himself as well as the police records and panchnama, this Court finds it improper to reverse the findings of the Tribunal in this regard. Nothing is pointed out in this regard to take a contrary view. This Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal regarding negligence of the deceased himself in the alleged accident.
10. Mr. Solanki has tried to take advantage of Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code in submitting that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon Ex. 194. Section 155 reads as under:
“155.Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.
(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non- cognizable.”
10.1 It is required to be noted that even if Ex. 194 cannot be relied upon, it is the say of the deceased himself as discussed hereinabove that the scooter skidded and he sustained injuries. Therefore the said contention cannot be accepted.
11. The appellants have also contended that the original opponent no. 1 shall be vicariously liable as the original opponent no. 1 was the master of the deceased and as the original opponent no. 1 had allowed the deceased to drive the vehicle and under the contract of service, he sustained injuries and died. It is required to mention herein that inspite of repeated queries put forward by the Court to the learned advocate for the appellants as to how the owner/employer shall be liable to pay compensation for the rash and negligent driving/own wrong of employee under the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned advocate for the appellants did not think it fit to or probably could not answer the same.
12. The decisions cited by learned advocate for the appellant is perused one by one:
12.1 In the case of Purshpabhai Purshottam Udeshi and others V. M/s Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. and another, reported in 1977 ACJ 343 it is held that when the accident was due to the negligence of the servant in the course of employment, the master is liable. Admittedly this pertains to vicarious liability.
12.2 Learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Bishan Devi V. Sirbaksh Singh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1862 wherein it is held that the insurer did not take any steps to establish that the vehicle was driven by a person who was not properly licensed and therefore claim cannot be denied.
12.3 In the case of Hazari Lal V. State, reported in AIR 1980 SC 873 it is held that statements by witnesses made during investigation cannot be used as substantive evidence.
12.4 In the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation V. Haribhai V. Darji, reported in 1984 ACJ 72 it is held that the owner is liable for the negligence on the part of the driver when the vehicle is allowed to go on the road in charge of driver or being used for the owner’s business or for owner’s purpose.
12.5 In the case of Narcinva V. Kamat and another V. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and others, reported in 1985 ACJ 397 it is held that the onus was on the insurance company to prove that the driver had no driving licence to escape liability and mere non-production of the licence by the driver does not exonerate the insurance company and it was held liable to indemnify the award.
12.6 In the case of Digvijai Tewari V. Rakesh Prasad Pathak and others, reported in 1987 ACJ 795 it is held that the onus is on the insurance company to establish that truck was being driven by a person not duly licensed and if it is not proved the Insurance Company is liable.
12.7 In the case of Shankerlal V. Shankerlal and others, reported in 1988 ACJ 866 the question was whether the defence of transfer of vehicle is available to the insurance company or not and the Rajasthan High Court held that such defence is not available to the Insurance company.
12.8 In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Paro and others, reported in 1995 ACJ 558 it is held that no law in general terms can be laid down that non-production of the driving licence or non-production of any evidence of having a valid driving licence would automatically result in a presumption of the vehicle being driven by an unqualified driver.
12.9 In the case of Sukhar V. State of Uttar Pradesh it is held that statement given by injured to investigation officer and also FIR lodged by him is not admissible as dying declaration under section 32 of the Evidence Act.
13. In short, the above judgements are on the aspects of vicarious liability, defence of the Insurance Company and the statement made by the witnesses during investigation cannot be used as substantive evidence. However, these are not the real issue in the present appeal. There are many contradictions in the facts itself. There is variance of time of accident. As stated earlier one version is that the employer went to the house of employee to pick him up and the deceased was a pillion rider when the accident took place i.e. the truck dashed with the scooter. There is yet another version that the scooter skidded and the accident has occurred. The third version is that the deceased himself was driving the scooter, the scooter skidded and fell down and the accident has occurred. This is the report made by the police and there is no reason not to believe the same. If at all the accident had happened the deceased had no reason to provide another story of the scooter skidding. The deceased himself stated that he went for duty on 7.10.1980, dropped his employer at his house and was returning with his employer when the scooter skidded and accident has happened. The Tribunal has no reason to unbelieve the said statement. This aspect corroborates with the hospital record. The Tribunal found that in view of the documentary evidence on record, all the evidence adduced by the claimants and their witnesses became unacceptable or unbelieveable.
13.1 The whole documentary evidence produced by the claimants revealed that the deceased sustained injuries as scooter skidded and he fell on the road and thereby sustained injuries. Therefore the accident of the scooter colliding with the truck was not believed at all. The documentary evidence on record does not state that the scooter was driven by opponent no.1 at the relevant time.
14. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that at the relevant time scooter was driven by deceased himself, scooter skidded and deceased sustained injuries and this has happened due to the negligent driving of the deceased, then the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the burden of paying compensation. In the present case the driver and the sufferer are the same person. I am therefore of the view that the ratio laid down in the authorities cited above is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. As regards vicarious liability is concerned, under Workmen’s Compensation Act the liability of the deceased can be fastened by the Commissioner and the yard stick for the same will be different. The liability of the owner is different under Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is required to be noted that the petition under Motor Vehicles Act was filed on the basis of rash and negligent driving done by the original opponent no.1 causing injury to the deceased. This was not at all proved by the appellant. Therefore the liability of the owner cannot be made good under the Motor Vehicles Act. The procedure under Workmen’s Compensation Act is different and it would not be appropriate to decide the claim under Workmen’s Compensation Act.
16. From the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) it is clear that when in a case of death of a borrower of vehicle (motor cycle in the said case) when the vehicle meets with an accident, the legal representatives of the person driving the vehicle after borrowing it from the owner and meets with an accident without involving any other vehicle, would not be entitled to claim compensation under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as the borrower steps into the shoes of the owner and the owner cannot himself be a recipient of compensation as liability to pay the same is on him.
17. It is also required to be noted that in the case of United Insurance Co. (Supra) this Court has observed that the claimant employee is not entitled to any compensation from the employer under the Motor Vehicles Act having found that the accident occurred on account of his own negligence.
18. In view of what is stated hereinabove, I do not find any merits in the appeal and the same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] Divya//