Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rekha Kanwar vs Devichand on 4 February, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (1 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 19/2024
1. Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Jitendra Singh Solanki, Aged
About 28 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Goyali, Sirohi.
2. Aryan Singh Solanki S/o Late shri Jitendra Singh, Aged
About 7 Years, B/c Rajput, Minor Through Rekha Kanwar
W/o Late Shri Jitendra Singh Solanki, B/c Rajput, R/o
Goyali, Sirohi.
3. Vanshika Kanwar Solanki D/o Shri Jitendra Singh Solanki,
Aged About 7 Years, B/c Rajput, Minor Through Rekha
Kanwar W/o Late Shri Jitendra Singh Solanki, B/c Rajput,
R/o Goyali, Sirohi.
4. Bhanwar Kunwar W/o Shri Vardi Singh, Aged About 58
Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Goyali, Sirohi.
5. Vardi Singh S/o Shri Sujer Singh, Aged About 61 Years,
B/c Rajput, R/o Goyali, Sirohi.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Devichand S/o Shri Lacchiram Agarwal, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Mukam Post Chamunderi, Tehsil Bali, Dist. Pali.
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through Divisional Manager, R/o 2nd Floor, Dare House,
2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai 600001
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
04/02/2025
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and award dated 21.07.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Case No.53/2016 (C.I.S No.53/2016)
whereby the claim petition as preferred on behalf of the claimants
stood rejected.
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (2 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
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) आया दिनां क 16.05.2015 को दिन में 4 बजे मालनु गां व से पहले मार्ग पर
में अमीरस होटल से मार्ग पर अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 चालक मालिक स्वयं के लाभार्थ
एवं हितार्थ तथा अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 की बीमित अवधि में वाहन जीप संख्या RJ-22-
TA-1002 को तेजगति, लापरवाही एवं उपेक्षा से चलाकर मोटर साईकिल संख्या
RJ-24-SG-6386 के टक्कर मारी, जिससे मोटर साईकिल चालक जितेन्द्रसिंह, की
मृत्यु हुई?"
3. The learned Tribunal, while rejecting the claim petition,
recorded a specific finding that the alleged eye-witness Arjun
Singh (AW.2) appeared as a witness in the criminal proceedings
also (Criminal Case No.408/2015) pertaining to the same accident
and the statements of the said witness as recorded by the
Criminal Court were got exhibited as Exhibit A-4 in the present
petition by the Insurance Company. Before the Criminal Court, the
aforesaid witness specifically deposed that he was neither aware
how the accident occurred nor had knowledge about the driver or
details of the vehicle. Therein, he specifically denied having any
information about the said two facts whereas before the learned
Tribunal, he deposed that he not only knew the driver of the
vehicle but also noted the number of the vehicle before he got
unconscious.
4. Arjun Singh (alleged eye witness), in his statement before the
learned Tribunal deposed as under:
"cksysjks thi la[;k RJ-22-TA-1002 ds pkyd nsohpan }kjk ?kfVr
dh xbZ FkhA eSa nq?kZVuk ls iwoZ ls gh nsohpan dks tkurk Fkk tks djhc 1
o'kZ iwoZ lsA eSa viuh cgu ds ;gka tkrk Fkk bl otg ls pkeqUMsjh esa
nsohpan dh nqdku ij vkrk tkrk FkkA ysfdu nsohpan eq>s ugha tkurk
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (3 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
FkkA eSaus nq?kZVuk gksus ds i"pkr~ cksysjks thi ds uEcj ns[ks FksA nq?kZVuk
gksrs gh eSa fxj x;k FkkA"
Whereas, in statements recorded on 15.10.2019 in Criminal
Original Case No.408/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate, Bali he
deposed as under:
"gekjh eksVjlkbZfdy ds uEcj vkjts 24 ,lth rd ;kn gS vkxs
eksVjlkbZfdy ds uEcj vkt eq>s ;kn ugha gSA ge ekyuw eksM ij igqaps
rc lkeus ls ,d cksysjks thi rst xfr o ykijokgh ls vkbZ vkSj gekjh
eksVjlkbZfdy ds VDdj ekjhA VDdj yxrs gh ge uhps fxj x, o
csgks"k gks x;kA ,DlhMs.V dSls gqvk eq>s irk ughaA fdldh xyrh ls
gqvk eq>s irk ughA pkyd dk uke o thi ds uacj eq>s irk ughaA"
5. The learned Tribunal therefore concluded that the alleged eye-
witness AW-2 Arjun Singh made stark contradictory statements
before both the Courts. The learned Tribunal concluded its finding
with the following reasoning:
"gekjk foospu gS fd xokg us mDr vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa vius c;ku lksp
le> dj lgh fy[kkuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl rjg Lo;a xokg vtqZuflag
us flfoy U;k;k/kh"k ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV ckyh ds le{k vkijkf/kd
izdj.k esa okLrfod dFku djrs gq, vius c;ku izn"kZ&1 ls myV dFku
djrs gq, ,DlhMsUV dSls gksus] fdldh xyrh ls gksus rFkk pkyd dk uke
o thi ds uEcj irk ugha gksus ds dFku fd;s gSA ;fn okLro esa
mlds }kjk ?kVuk ns[kuk rFkk og Lo;a Hkh mDr nq?kZVuk esa pksVxzLr gqvk
gS] og vo"; gh vius l"kiFk c;ku izn"kZ ,&1 ds rgr okgu pkyd dk
uke o okgu uEcj dk mYys[k djrk fo"ks'kr;k tcfd xokg ,0M0&2
vtqZuflag us vius vf/kdj.k ds le{k l"kiFk c;ku esa dFku fd;k gS
^^eSaus nq?kZVuk gksus ds i"pkr~ cksysjks thi ds uEcj ns[ks FksA mu uEcjksa dks
eSaus dkxt ij uksV ugha fd;s Fks cfYd ;kn j[ks FksA** bl rjg
xokg ,0M0&2 vtqZuflag ds vyx&vyx txg fn;s x;s c;kuksa esa
fojks/kkHkkl gksus ls rF; fHkUurk gSA
blds vfrfjDr i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ij xokg ,0M0&2
vtqZuflag us iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ&1 esa mDr nq?kZVuk dks eksrhflag iq=
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (4 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
eksgCcrflag }kjk Hkh ns[ks tkus dk dFku fd;k gS rFkk mDr xokg us bl
vf/kdj.k esa ftjg esa dFku fd;k fd og eksrhflag iq= eksgCcrflag tkfr
jktiqr fuoklh pkeq.Msjh dks ugha tkurk gSA ;fn vtqZuflag ds bl
vf/kdj.k esa gq, c;ku dks lgh ekuk tk;s rks eksrhflag }kjk nq?kZVuk gksrs
ugha ns[kh gSA tcfd i=koyh ij ekStwn flfoy U;k;k/kh"k ,oa U;kf;d
eftLVªsV ckyh ds U;k;ky; esa gq, eksrhflag ds c;ku esa xokg us mDr
nq?kZVuk cksysjks ds pkyd }kjk ?kfVr djus dk dFku fd;k gS] ysfdu
cksysjks ds uEcj ,oa okgu ds pkyd ds uke dh vufHkKrk tkfgj dhA
bl rgj mDr nq?kZVuk ds lEcU/k esa p"enhn xokgku ds c;ku esa
fojks/kkHkkl gksus ls rF; fHkUurk jgh gSA
blds vfrfjDr Mwaxjflag tks mDr nq?kZVuk dk izFke bZÙkyk fjiksVZ
izLrqrdrkZ Fkk] tks bl nq?kZVuk ds lEcU/k esa lcls egRoiw.kZ xokg Fkk
ftlus mDr nq?kZVuk dh izFke bZÙkyk fjiksVZ esa eksVj lkbZfdy dks
vlarqfyr gksdj Mhi esa fxjus dk dFku fd;k gS rFkk ckn esa iqfyl c;ku
esa gq, c;kuksa o uD"kk ekSdk esa okgu cksysjks ds pkyd dh xyrh ,ao
ykijokgh crk;k gS tks fdl vk/kkj ij crk;k gS] ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ rF;
i=koyh ij ekStwn ugha gS] ysfdu izkFkhZx.k us mDr xokg Mwaxjflag dks
bl vf/kdj.k esa is"k dj mlds c;ku ys[kc) ugha djok;s gSA
ftlls ;g izekf.kr gks lds fd okLro esa mDr nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ Fkh
ftlesa e`rd ftrsUnzflag o vtqZuflag pksVxzLr gqbZ gks vkSj ftrsUnzflag dh
?kVukLFky ij e`R;q gqbZ gksA
bl izdkj xokgku izkFkhZ vtqZuflag ds bl vf/kdj.k esa gq, c;ku ds
rF;ksa esa fHkUurk jgh gS] rFkk mDr xokgu }kjk vius c;kuksa esa fdl
cksysjks thi la[;k RJ-22-TA-1002 ls eksVj lkbZfdy dks lkeus ls
VDdj ekjuk ekSf[kd crk;k gS] ftldk leFkZu i=koyh ij ekStwn
nLrkosth lk{; ls ugha gksrk gSA vr% ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ.k us
vf/kdj.k ds le{k ek= Dyse ysus gsrq tkucw>dj okgu cksysjks thi
la[;k RJ-22-TA-1002 dks fyIr djrs gq, eksVj lkbZfdy dks VDdj
ekjus ds lEcU/k esa l"kiFk dFku fd;s gS tks drSbZ ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA
bl rjg i=koyh ij miyC/k mijksDr lk{; ,oa nLrkostks ds foLr`r
foospu ls ;g rF; rks fufoZokfnr gS fd fnukad 16-05-2015 dks e`rd
ftrsUnzflag pksVxzLr gksus e`R;q vo"; gqbZ Fkh] ysfdu izkFkhZx.k bl rF;
dks viuh lk{; ls fl) djus esa vlQy jgs gS fd mDr nq?kZVuk esa
cksysjks thi la[;k RJ-22-TA-1002 fyIr jgh gks rFkk mDr okgu ds
pkyd vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d dh mis{kk ;k ykijokgh gksA ;g izdj.k /kkjk
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (5 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
166 ds varxZr is"k fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ek= okgu dh fyIrrk fl) ugha
djuh gS vfirq okgu ds pkyd dh ykijokgh Hkh fl) djuh gksrh gSA
izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls tks nLrkost is"k fd, x, gS ,oa muds leFkZu esa tks
lk{; is"k dh xbZ gS] mldh iqf'V i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostksa ls ugha
gksrh gSA i=koyh ij ekStwn lk{; lkexzh ls mDr cksysjks thi la[;k RJ-
22-TA-1002 dh fyIrrk o mlds pkyd dh ykijokgh ls pykdj
nq?kZVuk dkfjr djuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ek=
{kfriwfrZ jkf"k izkIr djus ds fy, xyr :i ls cksysjks thi la[;k RJ-
22-TA-1002 dks lafyir dj Dyse izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gSA
vr% mijksDr leLr foospu ls bu fook|dks dk fu.kZ; izkFkhZx.k ds
foL) ,oa vizkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA"
6. The learned Tribunal further took into consideration the fact
that the FIR was lodged by one Dungar Singh and as per his
version in the FIR, the accident occurred due to the motorcycle
having slipped.
7. In view of the overall facts and also the site plan, the learned
Tribunal specifically observed that the vehicle in question that is
Bolero Jeep RJ-22-TA-1002 was not involved in the accident and it
was implicated subsequently during the police investigation. It
therefore recorded a specific finding that the negligence of the
driver of the vehicle in question was not proved on record and
hence, proceeded on to dismiss the claim petition.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence
of Arjun Singh (AW.2) remained uncontroverted and hence, the
learned Tribunal ought to have relied upon the same. He
submitted that the learned Tribunal should have taken a holistic
approach while considering the statements made by the eye
witness of the accident. Learned counsel placed reliance on Bimla
Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors.;
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (6 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
2009 (13) SCC 530 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that the Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings
of the parties, its function is to determine the amount of fair
compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"18. Some discrepancies in the evidences of the claimant's
witnesses might have occurred but the core question before
the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as
to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident
or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the
Court was required to apply the principle underlying burden
of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act as to whether a dead body wrapped in
a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour,
which was required to be proved by the respondent Nos.2
and 3.
15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly
taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be
borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to
be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to
establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High
Court should have taken into consideration the respective
stories set forth by both the parties."
9. Learned Counsel further placed reliance on Parmeshwari Vs.
Amir Chand and Ors.; AIR 2011 SC 1504 wherein it was held
that in a road accident claim, the strict principles of proof as in a
criminal case are not attracted.
Counsel therefore submitted that in claim cases the learned
Tribunal must take a holistic approach while determining the
compensation to the victim and must not decide solely on the
basis of documents forming a part of the record.
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (7 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
material available on record.
11. The only issue which arise for consideration in the present
appeal is whether the statements of the alleged eye witness Arjun
Singh (AW-2) could have been relied upon by the learned Tribunal
and whether the learned Tribunal erred while discarding the
evidence of the said witness?
12. What is evident on record is that the alleged eye witness
Arjun Singh appeared as a witness even in the criminal
proceedings as registered and initiated against the driver of the
vehicle qua the accident in question. The statements of the said
witness as recorded in the criminal proceedings have been got
exhibited in the present matter by the Insurance Company as
Exhibit A-4. In the criminal proceedings, Arjun Singh specifically
deposed that he was not aware as to how the accident occurred
and further as to who was negligent for the accident. Therein, he
specifically deposed that he was neither aware of the name of the
driver nor the number of the jeep in question.
13. It is further relevant to note that before the Criminal Court
the witness was even cross-examined qua the statements made
by him during Police Investigation and he therein deposed that the
said statements were not given by him to the Police Authorities.
14. Furthermore, before the learned Tribunal when the witness
was cross-examined qua the statements given by him in the
criminal proceedings (Exhibit A-4), he specifically deposed as
under:
"izn"kZ&4 dk G ls H c;ku ^^pkyd uke o thi ds
uacj ;kn ugha gksuk fy[kk;k Fkk^^ ;g ckr eSaus lgh fy[kkbZ
FkhA"
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (8 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
Interestingly, in the very next sentence, he deposed that the
statements as made in Exhibit A-4 are wrong and the statements
made before the Tribunal are correct. The said witness has even
gone to the extent that his statements before the Criminal Court
have been wrongly recorded and not as per the statements he
deposed.
15. In the specific opinion of this Court and in view of the above
facts, the alleged eye witness Arjun Singh could not have been
termed to be a reliable witness. The stark contradictions in his
statements clearly prove that he is not a 'trustworthy witness' and
the learned Tribunal rightly discarded his evidence. In terms of
Section 18 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as the 'BSA,2023') the statements made
by the said witness would clearly amount to 'admissions' and the
said admissions made by the alleged eye witness before a Criminal
Court have specifically been proved against the claimants by the
Insurance Company in terms of Section 19 of the BSA 2023.
16. So far as the effect of the statements made by a witness
before a Criminal Court, on the proceedings before a Civil Court is
concerned, as per Section 79 of the BSA 2023, the document
Exhibit A-4 has to be presumed to be genuine. The document
Exhibit A-4 i.e. the evidence given by the witness in a judicial
proceeding, recorded in accordance with law and signed by a
Judge has to be presumed to be genuine. Furthermore, in the
event that the said witness has even been cross-examined on the
document Exhibit A-4 i.e. the previous statements made by him in
a judicial proceeding, it becomes even more logical to discard the
evidence of the said witness.
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (9 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
17. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the clear opinion
that the learned Tribunal rightly discarded the evidence of the
alleged eye witness Arjun Singh and hence rightly concluded that
it was not proved on record that the vehicle in question was
involved in the accident.
18. The conclusion that the vehicle in question was falsely
implicated subsequently strengthens further more from the fact
that in the FIR as lodged qua the accident in question, the cause
of accident was reported to be the skidding of the motorcycle.
19. The learned Tribunal rightly observed that it was a clear
case of fake involvement of the vehicle in question as except the
evidence of AW-2 Arjun Singh, there is no other evidence available
on record to prove the said fact.
20. So far as the judgments relied upon by counsel for the
claimants are concerned, there is no dispute regarding the settled
position of law that a finding of a Criminal Court is not binding on
the Civil Court. But then the present is not a case with regard to
the finding of any Court.
The present one is a matter of specific and stark contradictions
in the statements of a witness who appeared as a witness and
deposed before both the Courts i.e. the Civil and Criminal Court
qua the same accident. The said witness on the face of it made
total contradictory statements before both the Courts. Further the
witness has been cross-examined on his earlier statements made
before the Criminal Court to prove that he had earlier admitted
that he was not aware of any of the particulars i.e. as to how the
accident occurred, who was the driver of the vehicle in question
and what was the registration number of the vehicle in question.
The said admission of the witness been proved on record, his total
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (10 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
contradictory statements before a Civil Court could not have been
relied upon.
21. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamla and Others ;
FAO No. 55 of 2013 (decided on 04.03.2016) the Punjab and
Haryana High Court dealt with a similar situation wherein the
alleged eye-witnesses who deposed before the Civil Court/Tribunal
regarding the accident, turned hostile before the Criminal Court so
that the accused driver is not put to any harm and thus, cleverly
the insurer of the offending vehicle was made to be held liable to
pay the compensation. In the said facts, while allowing the appeal
as preferred by the Insurance Company, the Court observed as
Under:-
"The counsel for the claimants has no answer to the
above submissions made on behalf of the Insurance
Company. After going through the records, I am
convinced that in this case, the claimants successfully
misled the Tribunal which recorded the finding that the
accident was caused on account of rash and negligent
driving of the offending motorcycle by its driver, Sh.
Parveen. In-fact, the deceased slipped/skidded from the
motorcycle and it is the consistent stand of the relatives
that there is no criminal intent. However, after two days,
when the patient died, the theory of involvement of the
offending vehicle being driven by Sh. Parveen was coined
and the same has been proved before the Tribunal.
However, when the case came up before the
Criminal Court, the same very eye witness turned hostile
so that the accused driver is not put to any harm and
thus cleverly the insurer of the offending vehicle has
been made to be held liable to pay the compensation on
account of death of Sh. Jagdish in the instant case.
There is a massive increase in such like cases of
fraud in recent times as the vehicular population
has increased manifold. The High Court in its
supervisory role has the onerous duty to cleanse
the lower Courts of such fraudulent acts. As a
consequence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company
bearing No. 55 of 2013 is allowed. The claim petition filed
by the claimants is dismissed. The claimants respondents
shall be liable to refund the amount already received by
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (11 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
them against surety alongwith interest @ 9.5% per
annum from the date of such disbursal to the claimants
till its refund."
22. The above view of Punjab and Haryana High Court was
affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in SLP © No.026487-
026488/2016 (decided on 29.08.2016).
23. Dealing with almost similar facts in United India
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi and Ors;
F.A.F.O. No.1810 of 2006 (decided on 30.08.2010), the Punjab
and Haryana High Court while reiterating the settled position of
law with regard to the veracity and reliability of statements
deposed by the witness before the Criminal Court and Civil Court
observed as under:-
"4. It should still have been possible for the Tribunal to
take a decision uninfluenced by any decision that may
have come before the criminal Court. The several
decisions which have come about on this issue are to
the effect that a judgment in a criminal Court is not
binding on the Tribunal; the non-filing of a FIR is not
material; even the fact of involvement of the vehicle as
found by the criminal Court is not binding. While the
Tribunal is competent to assess the evidence which is
brought before it and take an independent decision,
then the point that has to be seen is whether there was
any evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to
come sic to a finding that the particular vehicle was
involved in the accident. It can be either that the
version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be relied for he has
contradicted himself wholesale with the version given
before the criminal Court or looked for other evidence
which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any
explanation had been given by the witness as to why he
deposed falsehood before the criminal Court, even such
an explanation could have been accepted to enter a
finding that the accident took place only involving the
particular insured's vehicle. In this case, no
explanation has been given by the witness as to
why he stated before the criminal Court that he
did not know which vehicle was involved in the
accident. He would, on the other hand, defy that
he ever made any such statement before the
criminal Court, necessitating the statement made
before the criminal Court to be exhibited for
contradiction before the Tribunal. It must be
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (12 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
remembered a statement in criminal Court case
by a witness is also on oath. If he was uttering
falsehood, he was liable for perjury. If there was
contradiction between the version elicited before
the Tribunal to the statement made before the
criminal Court then such a witness will be
unworthy of acceptance. The Tribunal could have
simply rejected the whole evidence. If it was going to
pick out one line from chief examination to say that the
insured's vehicle was involved in the accident, the
Tribunal was doing something which is not a judicial
function but a travesty of justice.
5. The decision rendered by the Tribunal,under such a
circumstance, relying sic on an untrustworthy witness
cannot stand judicial scrutiny before this Court. The
Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant would
contend with vehemence that the witnesses do give
different statements in different Courts and particularly
in criminal Court to help the accused to secure an
acquittal. It has been the bane in our country that the
truth is ever a casualty in Courts. It is not a matter of
pride that India records the lowest percentage of
conviction which is as low as 8%. If truth is a casualty
for Court, untruth cannot lend a premium to a claimant's
cause as well. If the claimant must rely such an
untrustworthy witness, they have to fail by such
evidence. We have come through situations where there
have been instances of difficulty of proving the
involvement of the particular vehicle. Insurance
Companies are themselves not institutions of charity.
They are run on public money.
6....
Culpability must be inferred from the circumstances
where it is fairly reasonable. It is precisely the issue
here. If there was ever a speck of evidence that the
vehicle had been involved in the accident, it could have
supported the award of the Tribunal. The case suffers
from a whole lack of evidence. The award hinges on the
most untrustworthy evidence of the person whose
version is suspect. It is too fragile for this Court to make
an affirmation. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and
the appeal by the Insurance Company is, under the
circumstances, allowed."
24. In view of the above settled position of law, the above
observations and overall analysis, this Court is of the opinion that
the learned Tribunal rightly decided the issues in the present claim
petition on basis of the evidence as led by the parties and has
[2024:RJ-JD:45123] (13 of 13) [CMA-19/2024]
rightly discarded the evidence of the alleged eye witness. The
learned Tribunal has prudently adopted a holistic approach before
rejecting the claim petition by carefully considering the material
placed on record as well as the statements made by the
witnesses. The findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal are
totally in consonance with the material/documents placed on
record and the same does not deserve any interference.
25. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award dated
21.07.2023 and the present appeal is hence, dismissed.
26. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
171-T.Singh/AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
