Rajasthan High Court
Devik Jangid S/O Rajendra Kumar ... vs Kamlesh Kumar S/O Banwarilal on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1369/2022
Devik Jangid S/o Rajendra Kumar Jangid, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Ghodiwara Khurd, Police Station Mukandgarh, Tehsil
Nawalgarh, Distict Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Appellant/Claimant
Versus
1. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Banwarilal, R/o Ghodiwara Khurd,
Police Station Mukandgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Driver/owner Of Motorcycle No. RJ-18-
SR-7136).
2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch
Manager, Branch Office Station Road, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil
and District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Insurance Company Of
Motorcycle No. RJ-18-SR-7136).
3. Mukesh Kumar Khoda S/o Kailash Chandra @ Kailashrai,
R/o Plot No. 21, Rana Colony, Meenawala, Sirai Road,
Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur, Tehsil And District Jaipur
(Driver Of Vehicle Swift Car No. RJ-14-CP-7671).
4. Phool Singh Yadav S/o K.R. Yadav, R/o G-9A, Kabir Marg,
Banipark, Jaipur, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Owner Of
Vehicle Swift Car No. RJ-14-CP-7671).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment
05/07/2022
This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
claimant (for short, 'the claimant') against the judgment dated
21.2.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jhunjhunu (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MACT Case No. 313/2016,
whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been
dismissed.
(2 of 3) [CMA-1369/2022]
Facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim
petition before the Tribunal, wherein it was averred that on
10.7.2016, claimant-injured Devik Jangid was going to his house
as a pillion rider on Motor Cycle No. RJ 18 SR 7136, which was
being driven by Kamlesh Kumar rashly and negligently. Without
giving any indicator, Kamlesh Kumar turned the motor cycle
towards Kaseru on Nawalgarh Jhunjhunu road, due to which it
collided with Swift Dezire Car No. RJ 14 CP 7671 and the claimant
sustained grievous injuries.
The non claimants filed reply to the claim petition,
wherein it was averred that on the basis of the parcha bayan of
non claimant no.1 Kamlesh Kumar, FIR was lodged on 11.7.2016
against the driver of Swift Dezire Vehicle No. RJ 14 CP 7671,
which was un-insured. From the site plan also prepared by the
police, negligence of the motor cycle driver was not established.
The accident took place due to the negligence of driver of Swift
Dezire Car, but with malafide intention and in collusion with the
motor cycle driver, Swift Dezire Car driver and the police, charge
sheet was got presented alleging the negligence of the driver of
motor cycle.
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, necessary
issues were framed. Evidence was led by the parties and after
hearing the arguments, the Tribunal vide its judgment dated
21.2.2022 has dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal
has been filed.
Learned counsel for the claimant submits that
according to the site plan and charge sheet filed by the police, it
was clear that the driver of both the vehicles were negligent.
Thus, it was a case of contributory negligence. However, the
(3 of 3) [CMA-1369/2022]
learned Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter
and committed material illegality.
Heard. Considered.
From a perusal of the material on record, it transpires
that on the basis of Parcha Bayan of Kamlesh Kumar, driver of
Motor Cycle No. RJ 18 SR 7136, FIR was lodged, wherein it was
stated by him that the accident took place due to the negligence
of the driver of the Swift Car. This fact was well established from
the site plan also. But when after completion of the investigation,
it was found that the Swift Car was not insured, the claim petition
was filed alleging rash and negligent driving of the driver of Motor
Cycle. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly did not find
the negligence of the non claimant no.1-driver of the motor cycle
No. RJ 18 SR 7136.
So far as the contributory negligence is concerned,
there was no pleading of the claimant in this regard in his claim
petition.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this appeal
and the same being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed,
which stands dismissed accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DK/33
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
