Court No. - 21 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 32 of 2018 Appellant :- Smt. Rubi Devi And 4 Others Respondent :- Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar,Mangla Prasad Rai Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
(Oral Judgment by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)
1. This appeal has been preferred at the behest of the appellants against the judgment and order dated 7.10.2017, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah (herein after referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MACP No.341 of 2014 (Smt.Rubi Devi and others vs. Regional Manager, UPSRTC & Another) whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition before the Tribunal was filed by the appellants-claimants with the averments that on 29.7.2014 at about 11:30 a.m., the deceased Avneesh Kumar was coming to his house on a motorcycle of his relative bearing No.UP82-N-3834. When he reached Nagla Jamuni, a UP State Road Transport Corporation bus bearing No.UP76-K-1851 dashed a car (Alto) and simultaneously also hit the motorcycle of the deceased. In this accident, the deceased Avneesh Kumar, driver of car and his wife sustained serious injuries. Avneesh Kumar and car driver, namely, Vijay Kumar succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. The age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident. The deceased Avneesh Kumar was in business of tobacco and his income was Rs.25,000/- per month.
3. Respondent No.1-UP State Road Transport Corporation filed its written statement in which it was stated that the bus- driver saw the car and motorcycle coming from opposite side in a very rash and negligent manner and almost stopped the bus on its side, but the car-driver hit the bus from opposite side and the deceased also hit the motorcycle in the car from behind due to his rash and negligent driving with high speed.
4. Learned Tribunal framed two issues. Issue No.1 relates to the factum of accident and Issue No.2 relates to the amount of compensation to be decided.
5. While deciding the Issue No.1, the learned Tribunal held that in the aforesaid accident, motorcycle of the deceased hit the car from behind. There was no accident between motorcycle and the bus. Learned Tribunal opined that as per evidence on record, the motorcycle hit the car, but the Insurance Company and owner of the car are not made party in the claim petition. Only the owner of the bus in question was made party. With the aforesaid observation, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition by holding that there was no accident between the motorcycle and the bus and, in this way, the claim was denied by the Tribunal.
6. We have heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of UPSRTC and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that motorcycle, which was being driven by the deceased at the time of accident, hit the car from behind, but the bus of respondent No.1-UPSRTC was also involved in the said accident. All the three vehicles were involved in the same accident and, therefore, learned Tribunal has wrongly held that there was no accident between the motorcycle and the bus. He has also submitted that Investigating Officer prepared the site-plan during the investigation of the criminal case relating to the aforesaid accident and the said site-plan clearly shows that the car and the motorcycle, both, hit the bus. Lastly, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of eye-witness also and his evidence is not rightly appreciated.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-UPSRTC, per contra, submitted that the Tribunal has given correct findings that there was no accident between the bus and the motorcycle. Accident of motorcycle took place with the car and owner and insurance company of the car are not made party by the claimants.
9. We threadbare perused the material on record. There is no dispute regarding the fact that motorcycle, car and bus, all the three vehicles were involved in this accident. Learned Tribunal, although, did not believe the testimony of eye-witness, yet it has given finding that bus did not hit the motorcycle of the deceased, but after the accident between the bus and the car, the motorcycle hit the car from behind. Site-plan is not at all considered by the Tribunal while discussing the Issue No.1, which relates to the factum of the accident. Although, the site-plan is not a substantive piece of evidence the Tribunal should have taken it into consideration while discussing the entire evidence available on record. The question involved in this petition whether it was one accident in which all these three vehicles were involved or there were two separate accidents; one between bus and the car and another between motorcycle and the car, is a very important question to discuss. However, learned Tribunal did not discuss the evidence from this angle also.
10. In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the factum of involvement of the motorcycle in the aforesaid accident should be reconsidered by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal has taken a very narrow and hyper-technical view. Hence, we remand this appeal back to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh, particularly on the question of involvement of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident, as expeditiously, as possible in accordance with law.
11. With these observations, this appeal stands disposed of .
12. Record be sent back to the Tribunal.
(Ajai Tyagi, J.) (Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 LN Tripathi