Rajasthan High Court
Pramod Kumar @ Satyanarayan S/O ... vs Surendra Kumar S/O Ramesh Chand on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1385/2022
Pramod Kumar @ Satyanarayan S/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About
51 Years, R/o Sanjay Colony, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Surendra Kumar S/o Ramesh Chand, aged about 26
years, R/o Gurjar Mohalla, Pipaliya Sarhad, Police Station
Mandawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Owner Cum Driver Of
Vehicle).
2. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office V.K. Patni Complex, Bus Stand, Jhalawar
(Raj.)
(Insurance Company Of Vehicle).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment
06/07/2022
This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
claimant (for short, 'the claimant') against the judgment dated
13.1.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar (for
short, 'the Tribunal') in MAC No. 184/2017, whereby the claim
petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of M.V. Act has
been dismissed.
Facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim
petition before the Tribunal, wherein it was averred that on
16.4.2017, he had gone to village Moondla for distributing his
Mausi's daughter's marriage card, from where he was returning to
(2 of 4) [CMA-1385/2022]
Jhalawar on Platina Motor Cycle No. RJ 17 SH 2062. Before the
said motor cycle, another Motor Cycle No. RJ 17 S.N. 1007 was
being driven by its driver namely Surendra Gurjar S/o Pipaliya
Sarhad. The claimant was going on motor cycle alongside the
road. At about 2.00 PM no sooner did he reach at G.S.S. Electricity
Power House, Mandawar ahead Mandawar Police Station, Surendra
Gurjar, driver of another motor cycle without giving any indication
either from his hand or from the indicator, drove his motor cycle
rashly and negligently and turned his motor cycle in front of the
claimant's motor cycle, due to which the claimant's motor cycle
collided, the claimant fell down, he sustained injuries and his
motor cycle was damaged. He got registered the FIR and filed the
claim petition.
The non claimant no.1 filed the reply to the claim
petition, wherein it was averred that the alleged accident took
place on 16.4.2017, whereas the FIR was lodged on 8.7.2017, for
which no reasonable explanation was given. The claimant himself
could not keep control over his motor cycle and hit the non
claimant's standing motor cycle, due to which the claimant's
motor cycle was slipped and the claimant sustained injuries. The
claimant sustained injuries due to his own negligence and
therefore, he is not entitled to get compensation from the non
claimant. The Insurance Co. also filed his reply to the claim
petition, wherein it was averred that the alleged accident took
place on 16.4.2017, whereas the FIR was lodged on 8.7.2017 i.e.
after a delay of about 3 months, for which no reasonable
explanation was given. Even otherwise, the medical tests and X-
ray were got done on 9.7.2017, which casts a suspicion with
regard to the accident.
(3 of 4) [CMA-1385/2022]
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, necessary
issues were framed. Evidence was led by the parties and after
hearing them, the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 13.1.2022 has
dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this Civil Misc. Appeal has
been filed.
Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the
claimant had no knowledge that the FIR with regard to the
accident was to be lodged. He further submits that after
completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet
against the driver of the offending vehicle, which is suffice to
establish the negligence of the non claimant no.1. Thus, the
impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
Heard. Considered.
From a perusal of the material on record, it is noticed
that the alleged accident took place on 16.4.2017, but the FIR of
which was lodged on 8.7.2017 i.e. after a period of about 3
months for which no explanation was given, particularly when
from the site plan (Ex.-3), it is clear that the place of incident is in
front of the Police Station, Mandawar. The claimant or any of his
near relative did not make any effort to lodge the report without
any delay. Even the eye witness AW-2 Satya Narayan, who is said
to have doing business near the place of accident, did not make
any effort to give information at the Police Station, Mandawar.
It is relevant to mention here that the claimant was
said to have been admitted in the hospital on 20.04.2017 and in
his evidence he stated that he was discharged from the hospital
on 21.04.2017. He further submitted that he remained at home
from 16.04.2017 to 20.04.2017. In this view of the matter, the
Tribunal noted that from the claimants evidence, it was
(4 of 4) [CMA-1385/2022]
established that the accident took place due to the claimants
negligence.
The Tribunal also noted that mere filing of the charge
sheet against the non claimant no.1 is not sufficient to prove the
negligence of the non claimant no.1.
The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper,
with which I fully concur.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this appeal
and the same being bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed,
which stands dismissed accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
Dk/21
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
