Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Lal vs Maqbool Khan (2025:Rj-Jd:20524) on 28 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:20524]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 895/2025
Ram Lal S/o Shri Sola, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of
Masinghpura Tehsil Raipur District Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Maqbool Khan S/o Mohammed Hanif Khan, Resident Of
683, Musalmano Ka Bas, Ghanerao, Tehsil Desuri District
Pali. (Owner And Driver Of Motor Cycle No. Rj-22-Rs-
4472)
2. Go Diti General Insurance Ltd Formerly Known As Oben
General Insurance Ltd, Office No. 701, Manglam
Ambition Mall, Near Agrasen Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
Registered Office Address- 1 To 6 Floors, Ananta One
(Ar One), Pride Hotel Lane, Narveer Tanaji Wadi, City
Survey No. 1579, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. (Insurer Of Motor
Cycle No. Rj-22Rs-4472)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. RS Chundawat.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order(Oral)
28/04/2025
1. The appellant-claimant is before this Court seeking quashing
of the judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand, vide which his claim petition
has been rejected.
2. Brief facts first. On 13.07.2021, at around 9:30 PM, the
claimant (appellant) was travelling from Zilola towards Amet on
his motorcycle (TVS Champ) when one Maqbool Khan - driver of
the offending motorcycle bearing No. RJ-22-RS-4472, while
driving at high speed, negligently and recklessly lost control of his
vehicle, drove on the wrong side, and collided with the claimant's
motorcycle, causing the accident. As a result, the claimant fell and
sustained serious injuries. Bystanders at the scene took him to the
Government Hospital, Amet, where he received first aid. Due to
the severity of his injuries, he was referred to Udaipur Hospital,
[2025:RJ-JD:20524] (2 of 6) [CMA-895/2025]
where he was admitted. He had sustained a fracture in his arm,
requiring surgery, and remained admitted at Maharana Bhupal
Hospital, Udaipur, for 9 days. In relation to the incident, FIR
No.179/2021 dated 21.08.2021 was registered under Sections
279, 337, and 338 of the IPC, and after investigation, a charge
sheet was filed against Respondent No. 1 before the competent
court.
2.1 The claimant filed a claim petition bearing Claim Case
No.134/2022, against the respondents under Sections 166 and
140 of the Motor Vehicles Act before this Tribunal on 23.02.2022,
alleging the aforesaid facts and that at the time of the accident,
he was a 65-year-old healthy individual working as a marble and
tile fitting contractor, earning an income of ₹21,000 per month
from said work. He prayed that the respondents be directed to pay
him compensation of ₹45,81,000/- along with 18% interest, and
that the said amount be awarded in his favor against the
respondents.
2.2 Despite summons, the respondent no.1 (driver) did not
appear, leading to ex parte proceedings. The insurance company
(respondent No. 2) denied liability, claiming a delay of 41 days in
filing the FIR and asserting that the motorcycle was falsely
implicated. Claim petition was also opposed on the ground that
the driver did not have a valid driving license.
3. The learned Tribunal framed five issues, English translation
of which reads as below :-
"1. Whether non-applicant No.1 drove the vehicle in question, i.e.,
motorcycle No. RJ-22-RS-4472 in a rash or negligent manner and
caused the accident on 13.07.2021?
Applicant
[2025:RJ-JD:20524] (3 of 6) [CMA-895/2025]
2. Whether non-applicant No.1 was driving the said vehicle for his
own use and benefit at the time of the accident?
Applicant
3. Due to Ram Lal being injured in the accident, what amount is the
claimant justly entitled to receive, from which of the non-applicants,
and in what manner?
-- Applicant
4. Are the objections raised in the written statement by the non-
applicants valid, and if so, what effect will they have on the claim?
-- Non-applicants
5. Relief?"
4. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties,
learned Tribunal decided all the issues against the appellant-
claimant and dismissed the claim petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned
Tribunal erred gravely in dismissing the appellant's claim petition
due to the delay in filing the FIR. Learned counsel contends that a
delay, when reasonably explained, should not be a reason to
reject a valid claim, especially since the accident was clearly
proved through both oral and documentary evidence.
5.1. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Tribunal
wrongly relied on N.A.W.-1 Digvijay's testimony, which stated the
FIR was lodged on 21.08.2021, 37 days after the accident on
13.07.2021, raising doubts about the vehicle's involvement. The
learned Tribunal also relied on FIR No. 137/2020 registered at
Police Station Khivada, which also involved the same motorcycle
(RJ-22 RS-4472) and driver (Maqbool Khan). It was wrongly
presumed that the vehicle was intentionally planted in both cases
in collusion with respondent no. 1. Learned counsel submitted that
a vehicle may be involved in more than one accident, and the
Tribunal's conclusion is speculative and unsupported by evidence.
[2025:RJ-JD:20524] (4 of 6) [CMA-895/2025]
5.2. Moreover, learned counsel argues that the learned Tribunal
erred in drawing an adverse inference from the delay in lodging
the FIR, despite the appellant being hospitalized from 14.07.2021
to 22.07.2021. The FIR was lodged on 21.08.2021, and the
Tribunal wrongly presumed the injuries sustained on 13.07.2021
were due to assault, not a road accident, allegedly fabricated in
collusion with respondent no. 1. This conclusion is speculative and
contrary to the evidence. The appellant has proved the accident
through oral and documentary evidence, and respondent no. 1
admitted the same under Sections 133 and 134 of the MV Act.
Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed.
6. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the contentions of
learned counsel for appellant which are more or less on the same
lines as the grounds taken in the pleadings and have perused the
case file. I shall now proceed to deal with the merits and demerits
thereof and render my opinion based on the discussion and
reasoning contained hereafter.
7. Perusal of the impugned award shows that on through
appreciation of record and for reasons duly given by it, learned
Tribunal held that it was not satisfied with the explanation given
for delay in lodging the FIR which was filed 37 days after the
incident. It also noted that the discharge slip from R.N.T. Medical
College mentioned a "history of assault" on 13.07.2021 but made
no mention of the injuries having been caused in a road accident.
There was no eyewitness to the accident. Although the appellant
and other witnesses testified about the accident, the Tribunal
noted that these testimonies were not fully reliable. The key
witness, A.D. 2 Hari Singh, only arrived at the scene minutes after
[2025:RJ-JD:20524] (5 of 6) [CMA-895/2025]
the incident and did not directly witness the collision. His
testimony was based on what others told him at the scene, which
weakened the credibility of the claim. Further, the learned Tribunal
also noted that the same motorcycle (RJ-22-RS-4472) was
involved in another accident (FIR No. 132/2020) and had been
implicated with a similar delay in the past. The insurance company
produced documents showing that the same motorcycle was
involved in a previous accident and implicated after a delay. In
such situation, the learned Tribunal observed that the possibility of
a pattern of fraudulent claims, where the owner of the motorcycle,
Maqbool Khan, might have been involved in intentionally
implicating his vehicle in accidents to claim insurance fraudulently
cannot thus be ruled out.
8. The aforesaid observations by the learned Tribunal are
supported by the record of the case. This Court is also of the
opinion that if the injuries were truly caused in the motorcycle
accident, one would expect the medical record to reflect this and
no that the same were suffered in an assault. This contradiction
between the oral evidence and the medical records raises doubts
about the veracity of the appellant's claim of sustaining the
injuries in a road accident.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant and perused
the award, I am of the opinion that the dismissal of the claim
petition by the learned Tribunal was rightly premised on the
cumulative reasons of claimant's failure to explain the delay in the
lodging of FIR, a suspicion in his story of having suffered the
injuries in the disputed vehicular accident, medical records
conflicting with the oral evidence of sustaining of injuries by the
[2025:RJ-JD:20524] (6 of 6) [CMA-895/2025]
claimant coupled with the reasonable possibility of false
involvement of the offending vehicle in the so-called the accident.
The learned tribunal thoroughly analyzed the record and gave
cogent reasons for it's conclusions. I am inclined to agree with the
same. There seems no perversity or illegality in the impugned
award. No interference is thus called for.
10. As an upshot, the appeal is dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
19-/SP/Jitender//-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
