Purkha Ram vs Jethi Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 7279 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 506/2020

1. Purkha Ram S/o Shri Tulchha Ram, aged about 31 years.

2. Lumbha Ram S/o Shri Tulchha Ram, Aged About 54 Years, both B/c Jat, R/o Pokrasar, Tehsil Chouhtan, District Barmer (Driver And Owner Of Vehicle)

----Appellants Versus

1. Smt. Jethi Devi W/o Gunesha Ram,

2. Jogendra S/o Gunesha Ram,

3. Veero D/o Gunesha Ram, No. 2 and 3 Minors Through Legal Guardian , Mother Smt. Jethi Devi W/o Gunesha Ram.

4. Padmo Devi W/o Koshala Ram, all B/c Jat, R/o Dharasar, Tehsil Chouhtan, District Barmer.

                                                               ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)        :     Mr. Kistur Chand

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

15/03/2021

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants

against the Judgment and Award dated 07.11.2019 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in M.A.C. Case No.

100/2017 whereby, an amount of Rs. 43,81,220/- was awarded as

compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties,

decided the claim petition of the appellants awarding the

(2 of 3) [CMA-506/2020]

compensation to the tune of Rs. 43,81,220/- under various heads

in favour of the respondents/claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellants raised a solitary ground

that the registered owner of the tractor was not arrayed as a party

respondent in the present case and therefore, the finding recorded

by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 is erroneous. Learned counsel fairly

submits that in reply to the notice received under Section 133 of

the MV Act Lumbha Ram (owner) has filed a reply and has

admitted the fact of accident in the present case. He further

submits that in the testimony of Purkha Ram and Lumbha Ram

before the Tribunal they have admitted the fact of being driver and

owner of the tractor respectively in the present case.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the Judgment and Award dated 07.11.2019.

The Tribunal while recording the finding on Issue No. 1 has

held that the present appellants are the driver and owner of the

tractor and the same is conclusively proved by their testimony

before the Tribunal as well as the reply filed by the Lumbha Ram

in the notice received under Section 133 of the MV Act. Therefore,

there was no reason for the Tribunal to disbelieve the fact that

Lumbha Ram was not the owner of the tractor and Purkha Ram,

the driver. Therefore, merely because the registered owner as per

the record of Transport Department was not arrayed as party

respondent it will not change the outcome of the findings recorded

by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1. Lumbha Ram has admitted the

fact that he is the owner of the vehicle and Purkha Ram has

admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle at the time of

accident. The findings recorded by the Tribunal is correct and the

same does not require any interference by this Court.

(3 of 3) [CMA-506/2020]

The appeal is therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

6-Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)