Radheyshyam And Ors vs Shankerlal And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 7861 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7861 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 October, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Radheyshyam And Ors vs Shankerlal And Ors on 4 October, 2023

Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas

[2023:RJ-JD:32433]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1647/2006

1. Radheyshyam S/o Mohanlal Soni

2. Kanchan Bai W/o Radheshyam Soni [both resident of Kapasan, District Chittorgarh]

----Appellant Versus

1. Shankerlal S/o Madhulal Gaacha, resident of Changedi, PS Fatehnagar, District Udaipur

2. Sagarmal S/o Devilal Dadhich, resident of Khartana, Post Sanwad, District Udaipur

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Pitalia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia Mr. Nikhil Ajmera

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 04/10/2023

The present civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants

against the judgment and award dated 23.5.2006 passed by the

learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh

(hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal for short) in MACT

Case No.132/2001 whereby the learned tribunal has rejected the

claim petition of the claimants-appellants.

2. The facts as stated in the claim petition are that on

12.1.1996, when the deceased Ashok Kumar was going on his

Hero Puch to his village Kapasan, on the highway, a tractor

bearing no.RRN7049 with trolly bearing No.RRR3312 was parked

[2023:RJ-JD:32433] (2 of 4) [CMA-1647/2006]

at the road side without any parking light and indication, resulting

in accident wherein Ashok Kumar died on the spot. Thus,

claiming total compensation of Rs.29,70,000/- , the claim petition

was filed.

3. The owner of the tractor submitted reply to the claim petition

wherein it was stated that at the time of accident, the deceased

was not having valid driving license. It was also stated that it was

the deceased who hit the tractor from behind and, therefore, there

was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor.

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

tribunal framed 5 issues and the respective parties led their

evidence.

5. After completion of the evidence, the learned tribunal heard

the arguments and rejected the claim petition on the ground that

there was negligence on the part of the deceased.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants

submits that in the present case, the deceased died due to the

accident which occurred on 12.1.1996 and the vehicle in question

was involved in the accident. Learned counsel further submitted

that after investigation, the investigating agency found that the

deceased died due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of

the tractor and filed charge-sheet against the driver of the tractor,

copy of which was exhibited before the learned tribunal. It is

submitted that the police authorities during investigation prepared

a document and after investigation, Police filed charge-sheet and

the same is admissible in evidence, but the learned tribunal has

[2023:RJ-JD:32433] (3 of 4) [CMA-1647/2006]

disbelieved the same. Learned counsel further submits that even

from the site map prepared during the investigation, it was amply

clear that there were no safety measures adopted by the driver of

the tractor while parking it.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that

the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal

is well reasoned and no interference is called for.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

9. I have perused the charge-sheet (Ex.2) as well as the site

map (Ex.4). From perusal of the same, it is clear that the

investigating agency found that there was negligence on part of

the driver of the tractor. The learned tribunal, only on the basis of

statements of the witnesses produced by the owner of the tractor

that the driver of the tractor has put certain stones, held that

there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor,

whereas the learned tribunal ought to have considered the charge-

sheet filed by the investigating agency wherein the investigating

agency found that it is the driver of the tractor who was negligent.

As per the cite plan (Ex.4), no stones or any indication was there

near the offending vehicle. The learned tribunal has not

considered the site plant (Ex.4) too carefully.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu

Patil & Anr Vs. Vatschala UttamMore (Smt.) reported in (1991) 3

SCC 530 held as under:

[2023:RJ-JD:32433] (4 of 4) [CMA-1647/2006]

"It is thus evident that section 92-A was in the nature of a beneficial legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious payment of a limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no fault liability. In the matter of interpretation of a beneficial legislation the approach of the courts is to adopt a con- struction which advances the beneficient purpose underlying the enactment in preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose. The same approach has been adopted by this Court while construing the provisions of the Act. See: Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi & Ors., [1982] 1 SCR 860 and Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors., [1987] 2 SCR 752."

10. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, the

provisions thereof have to be given beneficial meaning and effect.

The benefit under the Act cannot be taken away on technical

aspects. In view of the above, this count finds that it is a fit case

for remand.

11. Accordingly, the civil misc. appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment and award dated 23.5.2006 passed by the learned

tribunal in MACT Case NO.132/2001 is quashed and set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the learned tribunal to decide the

same afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the

parties in accordance with law.