- (1.) WHILE descending from the hilltop Jain Temple, popularly known as Chulgiri, the father, Yogesh kumar ('the deceased' for short) and his son, Pawan Kumar Tikkiwal ('respondent no. 1' for short) met with an accident when their scooter slipped due to the rough and bumpy road. Because of the injuries sustained by Yogesh Kumar, he expired on 14. 9. 2000; Pawan Kumar Tikkiwal, the respondent No. 1, became paralysed from waist below. Immediately, after the said accident, the relatives of respondent No. 1 and the deceased who had gathered at the base of the hill took respondent No. 1 and his father to S. M. S. Hospital. Four days later, on 14. 9. 2000, one Ganesh Tikkiwal, the brother-in-law of the deceased, lodged an F. I. R. at Police Station Transport Nagar, jaipur. On the basis of the report an F. I. R. for offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. According to the F. I. R. the deceased and the respondent No. 1 were descending from the temple on the top of the hill to the temple at the bottom of the hill known as chulgiri, their scooter, bearing registration no. RNP 2904, was being driven by the deceased and the respondent No. 1 was the pillion rider. While riding, the scooter had skidded and the injuries were caused. According to the complainant, although he was not an eyewitness of the accident, but he had gathered the said information from his wife Laxmi Devi and his son Deepak, who were coming down from the hill just behind the deceased and respondent No. 1. Since the respondent No. 1 was unconscious for a few days, his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) could not be recorded immediately, but were eventually recorded on 26. 9. 2000. According to his statement (henceforth to be referred to as 'the first statement'), the respondent No. 1 clearly stated that accident had occurred because scooter had slipped on the rough road. The said statement is marked as Exh. NA4. The statement of Laxmi Devi was recorded on 30. 9. 2000 where she also corroborated the contents of the F. I. R. and the statement of respondent No. 1. Likewise, deepak Tikkiwal, the cousin of respondent no. 1, whose statement was also recorded on 30. 9. 2000 wherein he also repeated the contents of the F. I. R. During the course of investigation, the police also prepared a site plan which merely showed that the scooter had skidded. The said site plan was prepared in the presence of Ganesh Tikkiwal. Thus, according to the initial version of the case, the accident had occurred only because the scooter had slipped on the rough road. After due investigation in the f. I. R. the police had filed the final report on 26. 10. 2000 and the case was closed.
(2.) HOWEVER, after a lapse of six months, the entire case was changed. Respondent no. 1 wrote to the Superintendent of Police on 27. 3. 2001 wherein for the first time he alleged that on 10. 9. 2000, his father and he were descending from Chulgiri they were hit by a jeep bearing registration No. RJ 14-2c 5431. The said jeep was being driven by its driver in a most rash and negligent manner. The said jeep came on the wrong side of the road and hit the scooter. Consequently, his father fell from the scooter and became unconscious. He also suffered injuries and became unconscious. He does not know who brought him to the hospital. On 14. 9. 2000 during recovery, his father expired. He further claimed that after he regained consciousness, he informed his uncle (Fufa) about the accident of the jeep. However, despite the said information to the police, the police has not investigated the case properly. Therefore, he requested for re-investigation of the case. Upon this application, the supplementary statements of the respondent No. 1, Ganesh Tikkiwal, laxmi Devi, Deepak Tikkiwal and other witnesses were recorded. Eventually, the police filed a challan against Ramswaroop sukhija, the owner of the jeep and against kuldeep Joshi, driver of the jeep, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively before this court. Thus, clearly an innocuous accident was transformed into a deadly accident between a jeep and scooter within a period of six months.
(3.) TWO separate claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Jaipur, one by respondent No. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in the accident and the other by dependants of the deceased Yogesh Kumar. In order to substantiate their case, respondent No. 1 and the other claimants had examined four witnesses and had submitted documents. Insurance company had examined three witnesses and had submitted 13 documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence vide its common award dated 18. 1. 2006, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 10,27,305 to the respondent No. 1 for the injuries suffered by him along with 6 per cent interest per annum with effect from 23. 11. 2001. The learned Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs. 6,59,380 to the dependants of the deceased along with 6 per cent interest per annum with effect from 23. 11. 2001. Since the insurance company is aggrieved by the said award, it has filed two separate appeals before this court. Since the factual matrix and the impugned award are common to both the appeals, both appeals are being decided by this common judgment.;