Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amir Lal vs Phool Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:14361) on 18 March, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:14361]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3099/2018
Amir Lal S/o Shri Chhotu Lal, Aged About 29 Years, B/c Meena,
R/o Kota Road, Hanuman Nagar Colony, Tehsil Jahajpur, District
Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Phool Singh S/o Shri Ramkaran, B/c Meena, R/o Rosunda
Ka Bada, P.s. And Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi. (Driver Of
Mini Truck No. Rj 32 GA 0521)
2. Chandan Singh S/o Shri Bhajja, B/c Meena, R/o
Kuchalwara Khurd Tehsil Jahajpur District Bhilwara.
(Owner Of Mini Truck No. Rj 32GA 0521)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Micro Office,
First Floor, Kalyan Bhawan, Petrol Pump Chouraha, Devli
District Tonk. (Insurer Of Mini Truck No. Rj 32GA 0521)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
18/03/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and
award dated 25.11.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Shahpura (Camp Jahajpur) District Bhilwara in MAC Case
No.128/2013 whereby the claim petition as preferred on behalf of
the claimant was rejected.
2. The learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No.1 against the
claimant recorded a specific finding that the claimant failed to
prove that any accident occurred on 21.05.2013 by truck
[2025:RJ-JD:14361] (2 of 4) [CMA-3099/2018]
No. RJ 32 GA 0521. The learned Tribunal therefore observed that
when the fact of accident itself was not proved, the issue of
negligence of the driver ipso facto cannot be said to be proved.
3. The learned Tribunal reached to the above finding on basis of
the following facts:-
(i) The FIR for the alleged accident which occurred on
21.05.2013 was lodged on 22.07.2013 i.e. after a period of more
than two months.
(ii) The injury report was of 24.07.2013.
(iii) The only medical evidence exhibited on record was the
sonography report dated 23.05.2013 and that too, pertaining to
some person named Amit.
(iv) The discharge ticket as exhibited on record for the period
from 28.05.2013 to 05.06.2013 nowhere reflected the injuries in
question to have been caused by any accident.
(v) The alleged eye witness AW2-Gopal specifically deposed that
soon after the accident, he took the injured claimant to the
hospital and informed his family. But then, no prescription
slip/medical document of 21.05.2013 was exhibited on record.
Further, when the information was given by the alleged eye
witness on the same date to the family of the injured, there was
no reason as to why the FIR was not lodged for a period of more
than two months.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that there were no
external injuries caused to the claimant therefore, he was not
treated on the date of accident and hence no medical prescription
of the said date was available. However, the internal injuries were
revealed after two days for which the injured was then treated and
[2025:RJ-JD:14361] (3 of 4) [CMA-3099/2018]
the sonography report dated 23.05.2013 is a substantial evidence
of the same. So far as the sonography report being in the name of
one Amit is concerned, counsel submits that the same was just a
typographical error.
5. Counsel further submits that although the documents
pertaining to the treatment of the injured do not reflect the fact of
any accident, but then the fact of the accident having occurred
was very well proved by the statements of the eye witness Gopal
(AW-2). There was no reason to disbelieve the version of the said
eye witness. Counsel further submits that the hospitalisation of
the injured for the period from 28.05.2013 to 05.06.2013 was also
proved vide the discharge ticket.
6. After service of application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, Counsel Mr. Mukul Singhvi had put in appearance for
respondent No.3-Insurance Company. However, none has
appeared today.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
record.
8. This Court is of the clear opinion that the findings as
recorded by the learned Tribunal does not deserve any
interference the same being in consonance with the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record. The logic and
reasonings as given by the learned Tribunal for the said findings,
as detailed hereinabove, are correct and learned counsel for the
appellant could not point out any reason as to why the same
deserve any interference.
9. It is evident on record that not a single document was
exhibited to prove the fact of the accident having occurred on
[2025:RJ-JD:14361] (4 of 4) [CMA-3099/2018]
21.05.2013. The version of the alleged eye witness also cannot be
relied upon as it is not corroborated by any documentary
evidence. Even going by the version of the said eye witness, the
injured was taken to the hospital soon after the accident but no
document, whatsoever, even a medical prescription of the said
date is available on record to corroborate the said fact. Further,
the discharge ticket also does not reflect a single reason so as to
conclude that the internal injuries caused to the claimant were
because of any accident.
10. In view of the above observations, the findings as recorded
by the learned Tribunal does not deserve any interference and the
appeal is hence, dismissed.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
3-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
