Ravindra Singh vs Hariom
2022 Latest Caselaw 9700 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 730/2022

Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Gajendra Singh Rao, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Dak Bunglow, Pratapgarh, Distt. Pratapgarh.

----Appellant Versus

1. Hariom S/o Shri Kachru Prajapat, R/o Sanchai, Tehsil And Distt. Pratapgarh. (Driver Of Motorcycle No. Rj-35-Sj- 4360)

2. Dinesh S/o Shri Jagdish Kumawat, R/o Jhansdi, Tehsil And Distt. Pratapgarh. (Owner Of Motorcycle No. Rj-35-Sj- 4360)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office 31-

32, Indusind Bank Ke Upar, Janani Hospital Ke Pass, Chittorgarh. (Insurance Company Of Motorcycle No. Rj-

          35-Sj-4360)
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Ravi Panwar
For Respondent(s)          :



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

                                  Judgment

26/07/2022

Challenging the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the

learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh

(hereinafter referred as "the learned Tribunal") in MACT Case

No.10/2021 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim

petition filed by the claimant-appellant, the present appeal

invoking the provisions of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

has been preferred by the claimant-appellant.

The facts in nutshell as claimed in the claim petition are that

on 26.12.2019, when the claimant-appellant alongwith one Nilesh

(2 of 5) [CMA-730/2022]

Sharma was going to their home on a motorcycle, which was

being driven by Nilesh Sharma and the claimant-appellant was a

pillion rider and when they are reached at about 6 PM near the

Dak Bunglow, the motorcycle bearing No. RJ 35 SJ 4360

(hereinafter referred as "the offending vehicle"), which was being

driven rashly and negligently by driver of the offending vehicle

Hariom, hit the motorcycle of Nilesh Sharma, resulting into simple

and grievous injuries to the claimant-appellant. It was also

claimed in the claim petition that an FIR No. 60/19 was registered

at Police Station Pratapgarh, and after investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed challan against Hariom alleging offences

under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC.

After notice, the respondent Nos.1 & 2(Driver and Owner)

submitted their reply jointly to the claim petition denying the

averments made in the claim petition. It was claimed that a totally

wrong claim has been made by the claimants in order to grab

money from them. It was also claimed that the offending vehicle

was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and therefore,

the Insurance Company, who would indemnify the award amount.

On behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance company separate

reply to the claim petition was preferred denying the averments

made in the claim petition and an objection was made that the FIR

was lodged after 40 days from the date of incident and, therefore,

the case set up by the claimant-appellant is concocted one.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned

Tribunal framed following issues:-

"1& vk;k fnukad 26-12-2019 dks 'kke djhc N% cts LFkku thjks ekbZy ls ekuiqjk jksM dh rjQ Mkd caxyk ds ikl okgu eksVjlkbZfdy ctkt iYlj ua- vkj-ts- 35 ,lts 4360 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 1 gfjvkse us rstxfr] xQyr o ykijokgh ls ykdj lkeus vk jgh eksVjlkbZfdy ds VDdj ekj nh] ftlls

(3 of 5) [CMA-730/2022]

eksVjlkbZfdy ij lokj jfoUnzflag ds 'kjhj ij lk/kkj.k rFkk xaHkhj pksVsa vk;h \ &&ftEes izkFkhZ 2& vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk mDr okgu eksVjlkbZfdy ctkt iYlj ua- vkj-ts- 35 ,lts 4360 dks foi{kh la[;k&01 pyk jgk Fkk] tks fd okgu ds Lokeh foi{kh la[;k&02 ds fu;kstu esa gksdj dk;Zjr Fkk ,oa oDr nq?kZVuk mDr okgu foi{kh la[;k 03 }kjk chfer Fkk \ &&ftEes izkFkhZx.k 3& vk;k foi{khx.k }kjk izLrqr tokcnkok esa vafdr fo'ks"k vkifr;ka Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] ;fn gka] rks bldk izHkko \ &&ftEes foi{khx.k 4& vk;k izkFkhZx.k izkFkZuk&i= esa vafdrkuqlkj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vkf/kdkjh gSa \ ;fn gka rks fdl izdkj \ &&ftEes izkFkhZx.k 5& vuqrks"k \"

On behalf of the claimant-appellant, he himself produced as

AW-1 and got exhibited as many as 56 documents whereas on

behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company one Mr. Vimal

Bansal was examined as NAW No. 1 and got exhibited as many as

9 documents.

After hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal decided

issue Nos. 1 to 3 against the claimant-appellant only on the

ground that the FIR was lodged after 40 days from the date of

incident. Hence the present appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant

submits that the accident was occurred on 26.12.2019 at about 6

PM and since the appellant has suffered grievous injuries,

therefore, he remained hospitalized at Choudhary Nursing Home,

which is very much clear from Exhibit (21) and thereafter, he

could lodge the FIR. Learned counsel submits that only on the fact

that the FIR was lodged after 40 days, the claim petition cannot

be rejected.

(4 of 5) [CMA-730/2022]

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

record.

I have perused the Exhibit-21-the discharge certificate

issued by the Choudhary Nursing Home. A perusal of the

discharge certificate it is clear that in front of heading="A/H/O" it

has been mentioned that "RTA(PP) on bike collided: other bike at

7:00 PM on 26.12.2019 at Pratapgarh(Raj)". Thus, it is very much

clear that on 26.12.2019, the accident was occurred and the bike

over which, the petitioner was riding, collided with other bike. The

investigating agency while investigating the FIR No.60/19 has also

recovered the offending vehicle and thereafter filled challan.

Therefore, it is very much clear that the accident was occurred on

the relevent date, however, while deciding issue Nos. 1 to 3, the

learned Tribunal failed to consider oral and documentary evidence

available on record.

In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing

the impugned judgment and award has not appreciated the facts

of the case specially Exhibit-21 and the grounds raised by the

learned counsel for the appellant in a proper manner and passed

the impugned judgment clandestinely. Thus, the impugned

judgment passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by

this Court.

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed; the

impugned judgment and award dated 22.02.2022 passed by the

learned Tribunal qua aforesaid issue Nos. 1 to 3 is quashed and

set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal

with a direction to decide the matter afresh as early as possible,

preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of

the certified copy of the order instant, in the light of grounds

(5 of 5) [CMA-730/2022]

raised by the learned counsel for the appellant by way of the

aforesaid appeal and the judgment to be cited by the learned

counsel for the parties, if any, after issuing notice to all the

concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.

The claimant-appellant shall appear before the learned

Tribunal on 22.08.2022 and the learned Tribunal shall issue

notices to the respondents-non claimants.

Record, if any, be sent back.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 29-neha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)