Rajasthan High Court
Mahesh S/O Chhotelal vs Sampu S/O Hanna on 10 March, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6261/2019
Mahesh S/o Chhotelal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Naktipura
(Gaddigauv) Tehsil Mandrayal, District Karauli (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sampu S/o Hanna, R/o Gaddigauv Tehsil Mandrayal,
District Karauli (Rajasthan)
2. Dharmau S/o Haricharan, R/o Gaddigauv Tehsil
Mandrayal, District Karauli (Rajasthan)
3. L And T General Insurance Company Ltd., Through
Manager, Office 6 Floor City 02, Plot No. 177, C.S.T. Road,
Near Bandra Kurla Telephone Exchange Kelina, Santakruz
East (Mumbai)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment
10/03/2022
This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the claimant-
appellant (for short, 'the claimant') against the judgment dated
25.9.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short,
'the Tribunal') in Case No. 55/2017 (37/2015), whereby the claim
petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed.
The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal
under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
Rules, 1994 readwith Rule 10 (2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1990 claiming compensation on account of injuries
(2 of 3) [CMA-6261/2019]
sustained by him in an accident which took place on 6.4.2015 at
about 9.30 AM.
The non claimants filed the written statement.
Necessary issues were framed. After hearing the arguments, the
Tribunal vide its judgment dated 25.9.2019 has dismissed the
claim petition. Hence, this Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the claimant submits after
completing the investigation, challan was filed against the
respondent no.1. However, the leaned Tribunal overlooked the
same and without considering the material evidence on record,
has dismissed the claim petition in an arbitrary manner. On this
count, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned
judgment needs to be quashed and set-aside.
Heard. Considered.
From the material on record, it is evident that the
claimant was not employed on the Tractor with attached Thresher.
Rather the claimant admitted in his examination-in-chief that he,
on his own Will, was working at Thresher.
Relevant part of the examination-in-chief of the
claimant is reproduced as under:
^^ ;g ckr lgh gS fd eSa ?kVuk ds le; [kuu dk;Z djrk FkkA eSa
nq?kZVuk ds vk/ks ?k.Vs iwoZ ls iwMk Fkszlj esa ns jgk Fkk] oDr ?kVuk lEiw
?kVukLFky ij Fkk] ?kVuk ls 15&20 feuV iwoZ lEiw VªSDVj ls nwj
tkdj cSB x;k Fkk] eSa yxkrkj iwMk ns jgk Fkk] VªSDVj [kMk gqvk Fkk
RkFkk Fkszslj py jgk Fkk] eq>s VªSDVj okys us dksbZ iSlk ugha fn;k FkkA
VªSDVj dk EkSa] ekfyd] MªkbZoj o dUMDVj ugha Fkk] eSa flQZ v/kcVkbZ
ds ukrs dke dj jgk FkkA^^
He also admitted in his cross-examination that:
(3 of 3) [CMA-6261/2019]
^^lEiw rks VªSDVj dks 'kq: esa gh pkyw dj nwj cSB x;k Fkk] eSa iqMs fn;k
tk jgk FkkA^^
Thus, it was not established that at the time of
accident, Thresher was being operated by respondent no.1.
Rather, it was established that the vehicle in question was being
controlled by the claimant himself at the time of accident. In this
view of the matter, negligence of the respondent no. 1 was not
established by the claimant..
It is also clear that the claimant mentioned in the claim
petition that at the time of incident, many persons were present at
the place of occurrence, but he neither got examined any witness
nor produced any independent witness before the Tribunal to
prove his case.
It is also emerging on record that FIR of the alleged
incident was lodged after 4 days of the incident, for which no
justification was given by the claimant.
Therefore, 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/12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
