Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Roshni Devi Wife Of Late ... vs Ramesh Chand Arya S/O Shri Jagdish ... on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 976/2022
1. Smt. Roshni Devi Wife Of Late Ramesh Chandra, Aged
About 41 Years,
2. Kumari Poonam D/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About
23 Years,
3. Kumari Neelam D/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About
21 Years,
4. Kumari Meera D/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra, Aged
About 19 Years,
5. Kumari Khamosh D/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra, Aged
About 17 Years,
6. Navrang Kumar Son Of Late Shri Ramesh Chandra, Aged
About 15 Years,
7. Smt. Charchodi Devi W/o Late Shri Chhitar Ram, Aged
About 84 Years,
All R/o Jeevansinghpura, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar
(Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Ramesh Chand Arya S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Resident Of
Bansoor Road, Mohalla Bada Bas, Police Station Kotputali,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
(Driver Of Vehicle Scooter Registration No. RJ-02-6M-
4245)
2. Bheema Ram Son Of Shri Omkar Das, Resident Of Dhani
Kanugowali, Tan Holawas, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar
(Raj.)
(Registered Owner Of Vehicle Scooter Registration No. RJ-
02-6M-4245)
3. HDFC General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its
Regional Manager, Regional Office, HE/8, E.P.I.P. RIICO
Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur 302022 (Raj.) (Insurance
Company Of Vehicle Scooter Registration No. RJ-02-6M-
4245)
----Respondents
(2 of 4) [CMA-976/2022]
For Appellant(s) : Pt. Shri Ram Joshi, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment
06/05/2022
This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants-
claimants (for short, 'the claimants') against the judgment dated
28.2.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1,
Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident
Claim Case No. 319/2013, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the
application filed by the claimants under Section 140/166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim
petition before the Tribunal, wherein it was averred that on
09.07.2013 at about 11:30 AM deceased Ramesh Chand while
going from Baba Garib Nath Temple Bus stand Jeevansingh Pura to
his house for eating food and while he was walking in his side on
the pave way, driver of Scooter No.RJ 02 6M 4245, drove the
same rashly and negligently from Behror side and hit Ramesh
Chand in his wrong side.
The claimants filed an application under Section
140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal
claiming compensation on account of death of Ramesh Chand.
Written statement was filed. Necessary issues were framed and
after hearing both the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the
application under Section 140/166 of Motor Vehicle Act filed by the
claimants vide its judgment dated 27.10.2016 and held that the
non-claimant No.3 Insurance Company entitled to recover
Rs.50,000/- which were received by the claimants earlier as
(3 of 4) [CMA-976/2022]
interim compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the
Tribunal, the claimants filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.6282/2016 before this Court which was disposed of by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated
08.02.2017 with a direction to the Tribunal to re-investigate /re-
inquire the matter at its own discretion and if the claim petition is
found to have been filed on wrong facts and evidence, the Tribunal
was set free to file/register an FIR in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the Tribunal re-inquired the matter and after
hearing both the parties, found the facts and evidence as correct.
Accordingly, vide its judgment dated 28.02.2022, the Tribunal has
again dismissed the application filed under Section 140/166 of
Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the
claimants before this Court.
Learned counsel for the claimants submits that learned
Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the
claimants in support of their claim petition. He further submits
that from the evidence, it is clearly establish that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
Scooter No.RJ02 6M 4245 and deceased Ramesh Chand died due
to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Learned
Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and
committed a serious error in dismissing the claim petition.
Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable
to be quashed and set aside.
Heard. Considered.
(4 of 4) [CMA-976/2022]
Insurance Co. produced NAW-1 Ravi Gupta, who
conducted the investigation in the aforesaid claim case, in support
of their case, who obtained the Roznamcha report (NA-2) of the
accident dated 9.7.2013, from which he found that the accident
took place by an unknown vehicle. Even in the post mortem report
(Ex.4) of deceased Ramesh Chand, the road accident was said to
have been caused by an unknown vehicle.
In this view of the matter, from the oral as well as
documentary evidence, although the factum of death of Ramesh
Chand in an accident was found to be established, but the said
accident was caused by the offending vehicle i.e. Scooter No. RJ
02 6M 4245 was not established. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the
has rightly dismissed the application under Section 140/166 of the
MV Act.
The findings 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/4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
