Jagga vs Nathu Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7865 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7865 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 October, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jagga vs Nathu Singh on 4 October, 2023

Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas

[2023:RJ-JD:32554]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 805/2003

Jagga S/o Pratap Ji, resident of Maniya, Post Sadri, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand

----Appellant Versus Nathu Singh S/o Sh. Gokul Singh Rajput (Daroga), resident of Phiyawadi, P.S. Kuwariya, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 634/2003

1. Bihari Lal S/o Ukar

2. Smt. Mathri W/o Bhihari Lal

3. Smt. Kamla W/o Gorulal

4. Sh. Krishan Chand S/o Gorulal

5. Chhotu S/o Gorulal

6. Prakash S/o Gorulal

7. Surendra S/o Gorulal

8. Gopal S/o Gorulal

9. Ms Shanta D/o Gorulal

10. Manju D/o Goru Lal appellants nos.5-10 are minor through appellant No.1, their mother all resident of Amartalai, Maha Satiyo Ki Madri, Tehsil & District Rajsamand

----Appellant Versus Nathu Singh S/o Gokal Singh Rajput (Daroga), resident of Phiyawadi, PS Kuwariya, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia Mr. Nikhil Ajmera For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr. Dhanesh Sarswat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

[2023:RJ-JD:32554] (2 of 5) [CMA-805/2003]

DATE OF JUDGMENT 04/10/2023

Both present civil misc. appeals under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been preferred by the claimants-

appellants against the judgment and award dated 10.7.2002

passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal for

short) in MACT Case Nos.52/2001 and 51/2001 whereby the

learned tribunal has rejected the claim petitions of the claimants-

appellants.

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

5.7.2000, when the deceased Gorulal alongwith Jagga were going

on their motorcycle, when a jeep bearing no.RJ30-C-0134 which

was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently hit the

motorcycle from behind, resulting in death of Gorulal during

treatment and injuries to Jagga. The legal representatives-

claimants of Gorulal preferred a claim petition no.51/2001

claiming total compensation to the tune of Rs.24,66,000/- and

the injured claimant Jagga also preferred a claim petition

no.52/2001 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.13,62,000/-.

3. The driver/owner of the jeep submitted reply to the claim

petition wherein it was stated that three persons were riding over

the motorcycle and they were intoxicated and when the jeep was

parked, they hit the jeep.

[2023:RJ-JD:32554] (3 of 5) [CMA-805/2003]

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

tribunal framed 3 issues and the respective parties led their

evidence.

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

the arguments and rejected the claim petitions on the ground that

the injured in his statement and cross-examination could not

mention the jeep number.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants

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

accident which occurred on 5.7.2000 and the claimant Jagga also

suffered injuries and the jeep in question was involved in the

accident. Learned counsel further submitted that after

investigation, the investigating agency found that the jeep was

involved in the accident and the investigating agency filed charge-

sheet against the driver of the jeep for the offences under

Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC. It is also submitted that

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

of the jeep and the claimant Jagga received injuries and the

investigating agency filed charge-sheet against the driver/owner

of the jeep, copy of which was exhibited before the learned

tribunal. It is submitted that the police authorities during

investigation prepared documents and after investigation police

filed charge-sheet and the same is admissible in evidence, but the

learned tribunal has disbelieved the same.

[2023:RJ-JD:32554] (4 of 5) [CMA-805/2003]

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 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 material available on record. From

perusal of the same, it is clear that the investigating agency found

that there was negligence on part of the driver of the jeep. The

learned tribunal, only on the basis of statements of the injured

witness wherein he could not mention/recall the registration

number of the offending jeep, held that there was no negligence

on the part of the driver of the jeep, 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 offending jeep who was negligent.

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:

"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."

[2023:RJ-JD:32554] (5 of 5) [CMA-805/2003]

11. 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.

12. Accordingly, the civil misc. appeals are allowed. The

impugned judgment and award dated 10.7.2002 passed by the

learned tribunal in MACT Case Nos.51/2001 and 52/2001 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.