Rajasthan High Court
Suresh Chandra Sharma S/O Shri ... vs Rajendra Kumar Meena S/O Shri Roop ... on 20 July, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1095/2022
Suresh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o Village Netawala, (Ramlayavala), Tehsil
Jamvaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur.
----Appellant/Claimant
Versus
1. Rajendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Roop Narayan Meena,
R/o Saaunadi Ki Dhani, Tehsil Jamvaramgarh, Distt.
Jaipur Rajashtan (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-CW-0235)
2. Smt. Usha Meena W/o Shri Ramprakash Meena, R/o Main
Bus Stand, PS- Jamvaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur, Raj. (Owner
of Vehicle No. RJ-14-Cw-0235)
3. The New India Assurance Com. Ltd., Through Regional
Manager, Regional Office at Nehru Place, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
(Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-Cw-0235)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pritam Yadav, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment
20/07/2022
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant
(for short, 'the claimant') against the judgment dated 27.1.2020
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur
(for short, 'the Tribunal') in MAC Case no. 67/2018, whereby the
claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the claimant submits that there
was sufficient material available on record to demonstrate that the
claimant sustained injuries in the accident which took place on
28.4.2015. In such circumstances, the claim petition filed by the
(2 of 3) [CMA-1095/2022]
claimant was required to be allowed and compensation should
have been awarded.
Heard. Considered.
From a perusal of the material on record, it is noticed
that although a claim petition was filed by the claimant with
regard to the alleged incident which took place on 28.4.2015, but
FIR was lodged on 15.6.2015 i.e. after 48 days from the date of
accident. The explanation was given by the claimant for the delay
that he was busy in the treatment, but from the medical related
documents, it is clear that the claimant was admitted in the SMS
Hospital, Jaipur on 28.4.2015 at 12.16 AM. The claimant in his
evidence admitted that even after discharge from the hospital he
did not lodge the report. It is also noticed that when the claimant
was admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur, he could have lodged the
same in SMS Police Chowki, but he did not do so.
The Tribunal also noted that in the Roznamcha report
(Ex.-91), although it was mentioned that the claimant's motor
cycle was found at the place of accident in damaged condition, but
in the said report, number of the offending car were not
mentioned. Thus, it is clear that Car No. RJ 14 CW 0235 was
neither found at the place of occurrence nor anyone informed that
the accident took place from the offending vehicle. Even in the
mechanical inspection report (Ex.-13), it was mentioned that no
marks of denting, scratch etc. were found on vehicle Car No. RJ 14
(3 of 3) [CMA-1095/2022]
CW 0235, whereas in the written report (Ex.-3), it was specifically
mentioned that the motor cycle entangled in the bumper of the
car on road in the driver's side.
Thus, there being material contradictions in the oral as
well as documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal
noticed that the claimant's accident took place from any other
vehicle and in order to get the claim, FIR was lodged after 48 days
falsely implicating the vehicle Car No. RJ 14 CW 0235.
In view of the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of Mukesh Versus Pradeep Kumar and Others reported in
2016 (2) RAR 507 (Raj.), the Tribunal held that filing of challan
against a driver is not the conclusive proof of the accident, moreso
in view of the fact that witnesses named by the claimant were not
produced in evidence.
The factum of accident from the offending vehicle Car
No. RJ 14 CW 0235 not having been established, the Tribunal
rightly dismissed the claim petition.
The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are 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/22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
