Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sunder Devi vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 20 August, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:37354]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3086/2024

1.       Sunder Devi W/o Late Shri Ramniwas Saharan, Aged
         About 47 Years, Resident Of Village Kamasar, Tehsil
         Sardarshahar, District Churu. At Present Behind Circuit
         House, Churu
2.       Sunita D/o Late Shri Ramniwas Saharan, Aged About 28
         Years, Resident Of Village Kamasar, Tehsil Sardarshahar,
         District Churu. At Present Behind Circuit House, Churu.
3.       Akshay Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramniwas Saharan, Aged
         About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Kamasar, Tehsil
         Sardarshahar, District Churu. At Present Behind Circuit
         House, Churu.
4.       Anadi Devi W/o Late Shri Rooparam, Aged About 74
         Years, Resident Of Village Kamasar, Tehsil Sardarshahar,
         District Churu. At Present Behind Circuit House, Churu.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.       Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., G.e.plaza,
         Airport Road, Yarvada, Pune, Through Regional Manager,
         O-12, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. (Insurer)
2.       Chandan Kumar S/o Shri Ravindra, Village Lakhuwali,
         Tehsil And Distt. Hanumangarh. (Driver)
3.       Shyam Sunder Sharma S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma,
         Resident Of 7, Bhuvneshwari Vatika, C Karni Palace Road,
         Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. (Owner)
4.       National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Jaipur, Through
         Regional Manager Insurance Company. (Insurer Motor
         Cycle No. Rj 14 Dn 0693)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek




                     (Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:52:59 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:37354]                  (2 of 12)                    [CMA-3086/2024]


              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

20/08/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and

award dated 03.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(Family Court), Churu in Claim Case No.50/2019 (129/2017) (CNR

No.RJCH050003022019) whereby the learned Tribunal proceeded

on to reject the claim petition as filed on behalf of the claimants.

2. The claim petition was rejected by the learned Tribunal while

deciding Issue No.1 against the claimants. Issue No.1 read as

under:

"1- vk;k fnukad 22-03-2017 dks lka; djhc 05-45 cts okds

fpadkjk dSaVhu t;iqj ds lkeus fLFkr lM+d vke ij vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 us vius okgu oSXukj vkjts 14 lhD;w 8480 dks rstxfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj eksVjlkbZfdy la[;k vkjts 14 Mh,u 0693 ds VDdj ekjh ftlls bl eksVjlkbZfdy ij lokj e`rd jkefuokl ds "kjhj ij vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k nkSjkus bZykt mldh e`R;q gks x;h \"

3. While deciding Issue No.1, learned Tribunal observed that

although it was proved that the deceased died due to an accident

which occurred on 22.03.2017 by an unknown vehicle but then, it

was not proved that the said vehicle was RJ 14 CQ 8480. Meaning

thereby, the learned Tribunal concluded that vehicle No.RJ 14 CQ

8480 was falsely implicated in the matter. As a consequence of

Issue No.1 having been decided against the claimants, the learned

Tribunal did not find the claimants to be entitled for any

compensation and hence, decided the other issues also against

the claimants.

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (3 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

4. The learned Tribunal, while rejecting the claim petition,

recorded a specific finding that the cross-examination of the

alleged eye-witnesses Sunderlal (AW-3) and Deshraj (AW-4)

clearly reflected that they had not witnessed the accident rather

have been manipulated to testify.

5. AW-3 Sunderlal, in his cross-examination, deposed as under:

"eSa vkehZ dk fjVk;MZ deZpkjh gwaA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa jkefuokl lgkj.k dks mldh fefyVªh vLirky esa deZpkjh gksus ds dkj.k igys ls tkurk gwaA eSa jkefuokl lgkj.k ds vkehZ esa lkFk ugha jgkA "kke dks ikSus N% cts dh ?kVuk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ?kVukLFky dkQh HkhM+ okyk bykdk gSA e`rd dh eksVjlkbZfdy ls esjh nwjh iUnzg ls chl feVj FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus ?kVuk dkfjr djus okys okgu ds uacj ml le; gh ns[k fy;s FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ?kVukLFky ij VzsfQd ds flikgh [kMs jgrs gSaA vt [kqn dgk oks FkksM+k vkxs [kM+s jgrs gSA eq>s osxuvkj xkMh esa flQZ pkyd gh fn[kkbZ fn;k FkkA dkj pkyd dysDVzsV lfdZy dh rjQ Hkkxk FkkA iqfyl ?kVukLFky ij esjas lkeus ugha vkbZ FkhA vt [kqn dgk eSa rks dkj dk fiNk djus ds fy;s dkj ds fiNs x;k FkkA esjs xkMh idM esa ugha vkbZA ;g dguk lgh gS dysDVzsV lfdZy dh rjQ tkrs le; jsM ykbV vkrh gS vkSj ogka xkfM+;k :drh gSA vt [kqn dgk cM+h xkfM;k ugha :drh ysfdu NksVh xkfM;k dkj oxSjg :drh gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd jsM ykbV ij Hkkxus okyh xkM+h :dh gksA e`rd ds ifjokj okyks dks eSaus dksbZ lwpuk ugha nhA eSa e`rd dks vLirky ysdj ugha x;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus FkksMh nsj fiNk fd;k fQj eSa vius ?kj pyk x;kA eSa rhu pkj fnu ckn vLirky esjh [kqn dh nokbZ ykus ds fy;s x;k Fkk rc gekjs iqjkus LVkQ

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (4 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

ds O;fDr feys rc eq>s jkefuokl ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gqbZA ?kVukLFky ls e`rd dks lSVsykbV vLirky ys tkus ckcr eSaus lquk FkkA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd ?kVukLFky ls e`rd dks vLirky dkSu ysdj x;k] "kk;n 108 ,acqysal ysdj xbZ gksxhA ,acwysal dks fdlus Qksu fd;k eq>s tkudkjh ugha gSA eqdnek iqfyl Fkkus esa e`rd ds yM+ds us djok;k Fkk ftldk uke "kk;n v{k; FkkA eSaus v{k; dks yxHkx ikap fnu ckn okgu ds uacjksa dh tkudkjh nhA iqfyl esa esjs c;ku yxHkx rSjg ls pkSng fnu ckn gq;s FksA tks nq?kZVuk Fkkuk cuhikdZ esa gq;s FksA eSa vdsy ugha Fkk cfYd ns"kjkt esjs lkFk FkkA eSa vkSj ns"kjkt eksVjlkbZfdy ij Fks] eSa eksVjlkbZfdy pyk jgk FkkA dkj pkyd us e`rd dh eksVjlkbZfdy ds fiNs ls Vddj ekjhA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd eksVjlkbZfdy dgka dgka ls {kfrxzLr gqbZ gSA eSaus ?kVuk ds le; e`rd dh pksVsa ugha ns[kh FkhA ckn esa eq>s tkudkjh gqbZ fd mlds flj esa yxh Fkh tks vLirky ds LVkQ us crk;k FkkA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd e`rd us gSyesV igu j[kk Fkk ;k ughaA vt [kqn dgk eSaus ns[kk ughaA osxuvkj xkM+h dk jax lQsn FkkA eq>s ?kVuk ds ikap fnu ckn tkudkjh gqbZ fd ?kk;y gksus okyk O;fDr jkefuokl lgkj.k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ikap fnu rd eSausa ?kk;y gksus okys O;fDr ds ckjs esa irk ugha fd;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus bl ?kVuk ckcr iqfyl dks dksbZ lwpuk ugha nhA esjs lkeus iqfyl us Fkkus esa cqqykdj fy[kki<h dh dk;Zokgh dh FkhA izn"kZ 9 uD"kk ekSdk esa , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS tks Fkkus esa djok;k FkkA izn"kZ 9 ij pkSng ianzg fnu ckn esjs gLrk{kj djok;s FksA bl ij eSaus vkSj esjs lkFkh ns"kjkt us gLrk{kj fd;s Fks vkSj dksbZ ugha Fkk] iqfyl okys FksA ?kVuk ls iSarhl NRrhl fnu ckn e`R;q gqbZ FkhA eSa e`rd ls feyus ds fy;s chl fnu ckn x;k Fkk ijarq vLirky okyksa us eq>s feyus ugha fn;kA vLirky esa eq>s e`rd dk

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (5 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

dkdk feyk Fkk ftldk uke eq>s ;kn ugha gSA eSa e`R;q dh rkjh[k ugha crk ldrkA eq>s irk ugha fd e`rd ds ikl eksVjlkbZfdy pykus dk ykblsal Fkk ;k ughaA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd bl ?kVuk ckcr iqfyl Fkkuk esa dksbZ jkstukepk ntZ gqvk ;k ughaA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl ?kVuk ckcr eSaus vyx ls dksbZ izkFkZuk i= Fkkus esa ugha fn;k uk gh lwpuk nhA QkStnkjh izdj.k] tks t;iqj ds U;k;ky; esa yafcr gS mlesa esjs c;ku ugha gq;s gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd QkStnkjh izdj.k esa eSa i{knzksgh gks x;k gwa vkSj pkyd ds i{k esa c;ku fn;s gksaA xkMh ds uacj vaxzsth esa fy[ks gq;s FksA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd uacj IysV ihys jax dh Fkh ;k lQsn jax dhA e`rd dh eksVjlkbZfdy "kk;n fgjks gksUMk dh FkhA tc eSaus ?kVuk ns[kh rks jkefuokl dks eSaus igpkuk ughaA eSa tc igqapk rks xkMh Hkkx pqdh Fkh] jkefuokl uhps iM+k Fkk] yksx bdBs gks x;s Fks vkSj eSa vkSj ns"kjkt :ds ughaA vt [kqn dgk ge xkMh ds ihNs ihNs x;s FksA e`rd dh eksVjlkbZfdy gekjs ls chl iPphl feVj vkxs FkhA bl xkMh us gekjs dks VDdj ugha ekjh] ge cky cky cp x;sA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd e`rd ds iq= v{k; dks gekjs ls iwoZ ?kVuk dh fdlus tkudkjh nh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd izn"kZ 4 izkFkZuk i= esa okgu ds uacj vafdr ugha djok;s x;s gSaA vKkr okgu ds fo:) izkFkfedh ntZ djokbZ xbZ gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus ?kVuk ugha ns[kh gksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ?kVukLFky ij uk rks esjk edku gS o uk gh dksbZ dk;kZy; gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd osxuvkj dgka ls {kfrxzLr gqbZ eSa ugha crk ldrkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd e`rd dks vKkr okgu us VDdj ekjh gks vkSj ml vKkr okgu ds ugha feyus ij e`rd ds ifjtuksa us osxuvkj pkyd ,oa Lokeh ls feydj bl okgu dks ?kVuk esa xyr :i ls fyIr fd;k gksA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd iqfyl Fkkuk ;krk;kr ls vU; okgu ls nq?kZVuk gksus ckcr dksbZ

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (6 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

jkstukepk ntZ gqvk ;k ughaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd e`rd esjk vkehZ dk lkFkh gksus ds dkj.k mlds ifjtuksa dks Dyse fnykus ds dkj.k eSaus xyr c;ku fn;s gksaA"

6. Considering the above statements, learned Tribunal observed

that as per the deposition of the above witness, the car had hit

the motorcycle from behind whereas as per the Seizure Memo, no

damage had been caused to the rear part of the motorcycle.

Further, although the witness admitted that he was acquainted

with the deceased but still neither did he report the matter to the

police nor did he inform his family members.

7. AW-4 Deshraj, in his cross-examination, deposed as under:

"eSa vkSj lqnjyky gekjs dk;Z ls tk jgs FksA eSa jkefuokl dks

igys ls ugha tkurk gwaA lqnjyky tkurk Fkk ;k ugha eq>s irk ughaA eksVjlkbZfdy eSa ugha pyk jgk FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus uk rks iqfyl dks lwpuk nh vkSj uk gh ?kk;y dks vLirky ysdj x;k vkSj uk gh ekSds ij :dk FkkA eksVjlkbZfdy pkyd dh xfr /khfe FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd nq?kZVukLFky dkQh HkhM+ okyk bZykdk gS tgka jsV ykbZV Hkh gSA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd jsM ykbV ij iqfyl ds flikgh [kM+s jgrs gSa ;k ughaA ml le; [kM+s Fks ;k ugha eSa ugha crk ldrkA e`rd dks vLirky dkSu ysdj x;k eq>s irk ughaA eksVjlkbZfdy pkyd e`rd us gSyesV igu j[kk FkkA nq?kZVukLFky ls esjs eksVjlkbZfdy dh nwjh chl iPphl feVj FkhA iz"u%& eksVjlkbZfdy pkyd dks dkj us fdl lkbZM ls VDdj ekjh Fkh\ mRrj%& dkj us eksVjlkbZfdy dks ysQ~V lkbZM ls VDdj ekjh FkhA

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (7 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

eSus dkj ds uacj ml le; gh ns[k fy;s FksA nq?kZVukLFky ij eSa eqf"dy ls ,d feuV gh :dk FkkA nq?kZVukLFky ij chl rhl yksx bdBs gks x;s FksA VDdj ekjus okyk okgu ikuhisp dh jksM dh rjQ ls vk;k vkSj dysDVzsV lfdZy dh rjQ x;kA geus dysDVzsV lfdZy rd dkj dk ihNk fd;kA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd nq?kZVukLFky ls dysDVzsV lfdZy rd fdruh jsM ykbZV gSA vt [kqn dgk fd eqf"dy ls ,d gksxhA VszfQd T;knk gksus ls gesa xkMh fn[kkbZ ugha nhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd nq?kZVukLFky ij eSa okfil ugha vk;k vkSj uk gh ?kk;y ds ckjs esa eSaus irk fd;kA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd e`rd dks lqnjyky igys ls tkurk Fkk ;k ughaA ?kk;y O;fDr ds ckjs esa eq>s vkB lkr fnu ckn tkudkjh gqbZ Fkh tks lqanjyky us crk;kA eSa ?kk;y ls feyus vLirky ugha x;kA esjs iqfyl esa c;ku gq;s Fks rkjh[k eq>s ;kn ugha gSA vt [kqn dgk nl fnu ckn gq, FksA v{k; eq>s Fkkus esa feyk FkkA eSa lqanj ds lkFk vLirky ugha x;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd nq?kZVukLFy ij uk rks esjk ?kj gS uk gh esjk dk;kZy; gSA eSa [kqn dk dke djrk gwaA ?kk;y dks fdlus fdl vLirky esa HkrhZ djok;k eq>s irk ugha gSA eSaus iqfyl dks Qksu ugha fd;k FkkA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd eksVjlkbZfdy dgka ls {kfrxzLr gqbZ FkhA dkj dgka ls {kfrxzLr gqbZ ;g Hkh eS ugha crk ldrkA dkj esa dqy fdrus yksx Fks eq>s irk ughaA vt [kqn dgk fiNs dh lhV ij dksbZ fn[k ugha jgk FkkA dkj ds uacj vaxzsth esa FksA uacj IysV lQsn jax dh FkhA e`rd dh eksVjlkbZfdy fdl daiuh dh Fkh eq>s irk ughaA ejus okyk eksVjlkbZfdy ij vdsyk gh FkkA tc eSa vkSj lqna jyky ogka :ds rc xkM+h ogka ls Hkkx pqdh FkhA e`rd ?kk;y voLFkk esa jksM+ ij iM+k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus vkSj lqanjyky us ?kk;y dks ugha laaHkkyk FkkA vt [kqn dgk dbZ yksx vksj [kM+s FksA esjs lkeus iqfyl us ekSds ij fy[kki<+h ugha dh Fkh] ckn esa dh FkhA vkB lkr fnu ckn fy[kki<+h dh

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (8 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

dk;Zokgh dh FkhA eSa Fkkus esa x;k FkkA vkt eq>s ;kn ugha fd fdl rkjh[k dks Fkkus ij x;k FkkA e`rd jkefuokl nq?kZVukLFky ls iwoZ dh rjQ ls vk jgk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd esjs iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ 7 esa e`rd dk esjk tkudkj gksuk vafdr gSA ;g lgh gS fd iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ 7 esa eSaus e`rd ls feyus tkus dh ckr vaafdr dh FkhA eSaus e`rd ds ifjokj okyksa dks lwpuk ugha nh D;ksafd eSa e`rd dks tkurk ugha FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus ?kk;y O;fDr ds ckjs esa tkudkjh ugha dh dkSu O;fDr Fkk vkSj mldh gkyr D;k gSA nq?kZVukLFky ds jksM dh pkSM+kbZ yxHkx vLlh QqV gksxhA izn"kZ 9 esjs lkeus cuk;k FkkA izn"kZ 9 cukrs le; esjs vykok iqfyl okys FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd izn"kZ 9 ij esjs gLrk{kj Fkkus esa djok;s FksA vt [kqn dgk eq>s ;kn ugha gSA QkStnkjh eqdnes esa U;k;ky; esa esjs c;ku ugha gq;s FksA vt [kqn dgk eq>s ;kn ugha gSA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd v{k; dks bl nq?kZVuk ckcr lqanjyky us nq?kZVuk ds fnu tkudkjh nh Fkh ;k ugha] eSaus rks ugha nh FkhA eq>s ugha irk fd bl ekeys dh ,QvkbZvkj vKkr okgu ds fo:) ntZ gqbZ gksA eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS fd bl ekeys esa cuhikdZ Fkkus esa vKkr okgu ls nq?kZVuk gksus dh jiV jkstukeps esa ntZ gqbZ gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus nq?kZVuk ugha ns[kh gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd e`rd ds ifjtuksa dks Dyse fnykus ds fy;s eSaus xyr :i ls osxuvkj xkM+h dks nq?kZVuk esa fyIr gksuk crk;k gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd e`rd esjk feyus okyk gksus ds dkj.k eSaus xyr c;ku fn;s gksaA"

8. Considering the above statements, learned Tribunal observed

that AW-4 deposed that car had hit the motorcycle from the left

side whereas as per MTO report (Exhibit-14) of the car, scratches

were visible on right side of the car. Learned Tribunal further

observed that had the motorcycle been hit from left side of the

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (9 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

car, motorcycle ought to have been damaged from the left side

however, in Site Inspection Report, damage is reflected on right

side of the motorcycle. Furthermore, AW-4 though in his cross-

examination stated that he was not acquainted with the deceased

but in his police statements (Exhibit-7), had stated that the

deceased was known to him.

9. Learned Tribunal concluded that the alleged eye-witnesses

were knowns of the deceased and had they witnessed the

accident, their natural conduct would have been to take him to

hospital, inform the police and his family members. However, they

admitted that they did not take any of the above actions. Learned

Tribunal further observed that first information about the accident

was also not given by the said alleged eye witnesses but was

recorded around two hours after the accident vide 'रोज़नामचा'

(Exhibit-NA4) by the policeman who was on duty near the

accident site.

10. The learned Tribunal observed that FIR had been registered

and charge-sheet had also been filed against driver-Chandan

Kumar. Even in reply to notice under Section 133 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1988') the

owner had stated that Chandan was driving at the time of

accident. However, charge-sheet not being a fundamental piece of

evidence, could not be relied upon. Furthermore, both the owner

and the driver remained ex parte and hence, collusion between

the owner, driver and claimants cannot be ruled out.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that

the learned Tribunal erroneously discarded the statements of eye

witnesses whereas they specifically deposed that the offending

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (10 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

vehicle been driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the

motorcycle of the deceased and fleed towards Collectorate Circle.

Furthermore, when owner of the vehicle, in reply to notice under

Section 133 of the Act of 1988, admitted that Chandan i.e.

respondent no.2 was driving the offending vehicle, there was no

reason to disbelieve the statements of the eye witnesses i.e. AW-3

and AW-4.

12. Counsel submitted that in a road accident claim, the strict

principles of proof as in a criminal case are not attracted and in

claim cases the learned Tribunal is required to adopt a holistic

approach while determining the compensation and must not

decide solely on the basis of documents forming a part of the

record. He submitted that the learned Tribunal ought not to have

rejected the statements of eye witnesses solely on basis of the

documentary evidence i.e. the MTO report and the police

statements.

13. Heard the counsel and perused the record.

14. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present

appeal is whether the statements of the alleged eye witnesses i.e.

AW-3 Sunderlal and AW-4 Deshraj could have been relied upon by

the learned Tribunal and whether the learned Tribunal erred in

discarding the evidence of the said witnesses.

15. This Court is of the clear opinion and in concurrence with the

findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal. The alleged eye

witnesses Sunderlal (AW-3) and Deshraj (AW-4) were definitely

the interested witnesses and their statements could not have been

relied upon. This Court is of the said opinion for the following

reasons :

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (11 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

i) In his police statement AW4 Deshraj specifically stated the

deceased to be of his acquaintance. However, in his court

statement he specifically denied the fact of him being known to

the deceased. His police statements were a part of record as

Exhibit-7 and the learned Tribunal rightly observed the stark

contradiction in both the statements.

ii) AW3 Sunderlal specifically admitted of he being acquainted

with the deceased even prior to their employment with the Military

Hospital. However, interestingly, despite he having witnessed the

accident in question and the deceased being known to him, he did

not even care to inform the police or family members of the

deceased about the accident. The same is definitely contrary to

common parlance and normal human behaviour. The most glaring

fact is that he did not even care to take the victim to the hospital

rather specifically admitted that he did not know who called for

the ambulance.

iii) AW3 Sunderlal specifically admitted in his cross-examination

that the Site Report was signed by him at the police station after

14 to 15 days of the incident. Similar is the case of alleged eye

witness Deshraj (AW4). Interestingly, this witness deposed that

the Site Report was prepared in his presence whereas Sunderlal

specifically deposed that both he and Deshraj signed the Site

Report at police station.

All the above facts are sufficient enough to conclude that

both the alleged eye witnesses were subsequently implanted in

the scene.

[2025:RJ-JD:37354] (12 of 12) [CMA-3086/2024]

16. Coupled with the above facts, the relevant aspect is that no

independent witness has been examined on behalf of the

claimants. Further, both owner and driver of the vehicle remained

ex parte.

17. Furthermore, the FIR at the inception was registered against

an unknown vehicle and even the Rojnamcha as entered on the

date of the accident did not prescribe the make/number of any

vehicle.