Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surajmal And Ors vs Ratan Lal And Ors (2024:Rj-Jd:43862) on 24 October, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:43862]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 314/2003
1. Surajmal Son of late Hakram Meena, minior through
natural guardian mother Smt. Ratni Bai Wife of Hakra
Meena, Resident of Inton Ka Talab, Tehsil- Chhotisadri,
District Chittorgarh.
2. Narayan Son of late Hakram Meena, minior through natural
guardian mother Smt. Ratni Bai Wife of Hakra Meena,
Resident of Inton Ka Talab, Tehsil- Chhotisadri, District
Chittorgarh.
3. Lakhmi Chand Son of late Hakram Meena, minior through
natural guardian mother Smt. Ratni Bai Wife of Hakra
Meena, Resident of Inton Ka Talab, Tehsil- Chhotisadri,
District Chittorgarh.
4. Smt. Ratni Bai Wife of Late Hakra Meena, Resident of Inton
Ka Talab, Tehsil- Chhotisadri, District Chittorgarh.
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Ratan Lal Son of Naru Singh Meena, Driver, Resident of
Manpura, Tehsil Chhotisadari, District Chittorgarh.
2. Jeetmal Son of Ramlal Tak, Owner of Tractor, Resident of
Inton Ka Talab, Tehsil- Chhotisadri, District Chittorgarh
3. Thakurlal Son of Jeetmal Tak, Owner of Trolley, Resident
of Inton Ka Talab, Tehsil- Chhotisadri, District Chittorgarh
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain.
For Respondent(s) : Nr. N.K. Rastogi, R-3.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
24/10/2024
1. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988
('Act') has been preferred by the appellants/claimants impugning
the judgment dated 25.09.2002 passed by learned Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh ('Tribunal') in MAC Case No.
[2024:RJ-JD:43862] (2 of 6) [CMA-314/2003]
(38) (138/1995), whereby the claim petition preferred by the
appellants/claimants has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming
compensation of Rs.6,66,000/- on account of death of Khemraj,
brother of appellants No.1 to 3 and son of claimant No.3, who lost
his life in the accident, which took place on 31.01.1995. In the
claim petition, on 31.01.1995 while deceased Khem Raj while
boarding in Tractor/Trolley (RJ-09-R-1187 & RJ-09-R-1177) was
going from Siyakhedi to Inton-Ka-Talab, then at about 04:00 pm
the said tractor reached near Hotel, the driver of the
Tractor/Trolley lost his control over the vehicle, as a result of
which the trolley turned turtle and Khemraj was crushed under the
trolley and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the non-
claimants No.2 and 3 were the owner and non-claimant No.1 was
plying the tractor/trolley under the instructions and employment
of non-claimants No.2 and 3. At the time of accident, deceased
Khem Raj was studying in 8th standard. During pendency of the
claim petition, father of deceased Sh. Hakra Meena, who was one
of the claimants, expired and thereafter the claim petition petition
was pursued by the appellants herein.
3. Despite service of the summons of the claim petition, nobody
appeared on behalf of non-claimant No.1/driver. On behalf of non-
claimants No.2 and 3, reply to claim petition was filed while
denying the facts averred in the claim petition. In the reply it was
stated that no accident had taken on the date and time mentioned
in the claim petition. It was stated that in fact the deceased
himself was negligent, inasmuch as the deceased while climbing in
[2024:RJ-JD:43862] (3 of 6) [CMA-314/2003]
the trolley sustained injuries and died. It was further stated in the
reply that prior to filing the claim petition, the claimants obtained
compensation from the owner. It was thus prayed that the claim
petition be rejected.
4. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed seven issues including relief. In support of their claim, the
claimants examined three witnesses and exhibited certain
documents. The non-claimants No.2 and 3 in their defence,
examined three witnesses and also exhibited compromise-deed as
Ex.D/1.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after
scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal
vide impugned judgment dated 25.09.2002 dismissed the claim
petition filed by the appellants/claimants.
6. Aggrieved by dismissal of their claim petition, the appellants/
claimants have preferred this misc. appeal, which was admitted by
a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.04.2003. As per office
report dated 27.02.2004, the respondent No.2 even refused to
accept notice, which was witnessed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that
the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding the Issue No.4 against
the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition has relied
upon a compromise-deed (Ex.D/1). Learned counsel for the
appellants submits that despite execution of the compromise-
deed, the claimants were not paid a single penny by the non-
claimants and the said compromise was executed under duress.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the
[2024:RJ-JD:43862] (4 of 6) [CMA-314/2003]
settlement was without consideration under coercion under the
influence of the respondents and was without free consent,
therefore, the same could not have been considered while
deciding the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellants,
therefore, submits that the claim petition has wrongly been
dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.3 submits that a compromise (Ex.D/1) was arrived
at between the claimants and non-claimants on 23.05.1995, upon
which the claimants along with Hakra (now deceased) affixed their
thumb impressions. The compromise was reduced into writing and
the same was also witnessed by Narayan and Deva and in
pursuance of the compromise, the claimants received a sum of
Rs.18,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits
that the persons who witnessed the compromise (Ex.D/1) were
also examined before the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for
the respondent No.3 further submits that the AW.1 Ratni Bai has
not denied execution of the compromise deed (Ex.D/1) and
affixing her and her husband's thumb impression upon the same.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 thus submits that after
having accepted the compensation from the respondents under
the settlement arrived between the parties, the claimants with a
view to claim compensation qua the same accident, had filed the
claim petition, which was rightly dismissed by the learned
Tribunal.
9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties at length and have perused the material available on
record.
[2024:RJ-JD:43862] (5 of 6) [CMA-314/2003]
10. This Court finds that while deciding the Issue No.4, the onus
to prove the same was upon the non-claimants, the learned
Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced by the non-
claimants in relation to compromise-deed (Ex.D/1). The learned
Tribunal observed that the compromise was witnessed by two
witnesses, who were examined in the court. One of the attesting
witness viz. NAW.3 Narayan has deposed that the compromise
arrived at between the claimants and non-claimants was
witnessed by him and a sum of Rs.18,000/- was paid to the
claimants in his presence. Further, the Notary Public (NAW2, Paras
Kumar Nagori) has also substantiated the execution of the
compromise-deed (Ex.D/1). This Court finds that the learned
Tribunal has also observed that AW.1 Smt. Ratni Bai herself has
not denied execution of the compromise and no evidence was led
by the claimants that the same was executed under pressure.
11. This Court further finds that the learned Tribunal, while
deciding Issue No.4 has also observed that earlier the claimants
had withdrawn a claim petition on 06.08.2001, as not pressed
which was filed by them under Section 140 of the Act, therefore,
the learned Tribunal was just in not considering the claim petition
filed by the claimants. The learned Tribunal in the impugned
judgment after considering the evidence adduced by the claimants
observed that the claimants had received the compensation from
the non-claimants and thereafter with a view to again seek
compensation amount from the non-claimants, the claimants had
filed the claim petition, which has rightly been dismissed by the
learned Tribunal.
[2024:RJ-JD:43862] (6 of 6) [CMA-314/2003]
12. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds
no force in the misc. appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants.
The misc. appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
2-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
