Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Uchchhal Kanwar vs Mahaveer Prasad (2025:Rj-Jd:21947) on 7 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:21947]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 726/2024
1. Smt. Uchchhal Kanwar W/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, Aged
About 62 Years, R/o Gurjar Mohalla, Keriya, Tehsil
Mandal, Dist. Bhilwara.
2. Madan Singh S/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Bus Stand, Keriya Tehsil Mandal, Dist.
Bhilwara.
3. Smt. Mithu Kanwar D/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, Aged
About 40 Years, W/o Shri Kishan Singh, R/o Rajputon Ka
Mohalla, Hansiyas, Kanda, Dist. Bhilwara.
4. Smt. Madhu Kanwar D/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, Aged
About 37 Years, W/o Shri Abhay Singh, R/o Rajputon Ka
Mohalla, Itawa, Gehuli Tehsil Kotri, Dist. Bhilwara.
5. Smt. Sushila Kanwar D/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Rajputon Ka Mohalla, Itawa, Gehuli,
Tehsil Kotri, Dist. Bhilwara.
6. Smt. Samta Kanwar D/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Bhilwara Road, Kotri, Tehsil Kotri,
Dist. Bhilwara.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Shri Pyarchand, R/o Khatoli, Tehsil
Asind, Dist. Bhilwara.
2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through
Divisional Manager, Division Office, The New India
Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jyoti Patel -R/2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/05/2025
1. Aggrieved by the judgment / award dated 11.12.2023
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Bhilwara in Motor
Accident Claim Case No.61/2022, vide which the claim application
seeking compensation filed by the appellants has been dismissed,
the appellants are before this Court by way of the instant appeal
seeking quashing of the same.
[2025:RJ-JD:21947] (2 of 8) [CMA-726/2024]
2. Brief facts first. The appellants (widow, four daughters and
one son of the deceased) filed a claim petition under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1,
Bhilwara, seeking compensation for the death of Sumer Singh in a
road accident that occurred on 21.06.2021. As stated in the
petition, the deceased was traveling from Kediya to Bheemdiyas at
around 10:30 A.M. when a vehicle, allegedly driven in a rash and
negligent manner, collided head-on with him, causing severe
injuries that proved fatal. The incident was reported by one
Vijayendra Singh at the Cheerghar Police Station, leading to the
registration of FIR No.183/2021 and the eventual filing of a charge
sheet against the driver, Mahaveer Prasad.
2.1 At the time of the accident, Sumer Singh was 65 years old
and reportedly earning ₹20,000 per month through agricultural
work and dairy farming. The claimants sought a compensation
amount of ₹71,05,000 for the loss suffered due to his untimely
demise.
3. Ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the driver by the
Tribunal on 05.08.2022.
4. The Insurance Company, however, contested the claim,
arguing that the deceased, due to his age, had no income and that
the accident was a result of his own negligence. It was contended
that the driving license of the driver was invalid and that the FIR
initially mentioned an unknown vehicle, thereby denying liability
for compensation.
5. Learned Tribunal framed five issues, English translation of
which is as follows:-
[2025:RJ-JD:21947] (3 of 8) [CMA-726/2024]
"(1) Whether Shri Sumer Singh died as a result of an accident
caused by the negligent and rash driving of Maruti Van RJ 06 UA
2652 by driver non-petitioner No. 01 on 21/06/2021?
-- Applicants
(2) Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by non-
petitioner No. 01, was being driven by non-petitioner No. 01 for the
purpose and benefit of non-petitioner No. 02, and was insured with
non-petitioner No. 02 at the time of the accident?
-Applicants
(3) Whether the non-petitioners are not liable to pay the
compensation amount for the reasons stated in their reply?
-- Non-applicants
(4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to jointly and severally
receive a total compensation amount from the non-petitioners as
described in paragraph 25 of their application? If yes, what is the
amount?
-- Applicants
(5) Relief?"
6. The claimants examined three witnesses--Uchchhal Kanwar,
Madan Kawar, and Jaswant Singh--and submitted documents
marked Ex.1 to Ex.18. The respondents did not produce any oral
or documentary evidence in their defense. Based on the respective
evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal decided all
the issues against appellants-claimants and dismissed the claim
petition.
7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their petition, the appellants
have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and award
dated 11.12.2023.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset,
submits that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition solely
relying on an erroneous statement made by the attending
physician, who mentioned a collision between motorcycles, while
disregarding other direct and consistent evidence pointing to the
involvement of a Maruti Van in the accident.
8.1 He points out that although the FIR initially referred to an
unknown vehicle, the subsequent police investigation identified
the offending vehicle as a Maruti Van bearing registration No. RJ-
[2025:RJ-JD:21947] (4 of 8) [CMA-726/2024]
06-UA-2652, as reflected in the charge-sheet (Ex.-1). However,
the Tribunal assigned no reasoning for disregarding this
investigative finding.
8.2 He argues that the reliance on Ex.A-3 Rojnamcha Report,
which mentioned a motorcycle collision, was misplaced. The
source of that information was never clarified, and it was not
provided by any claimant or family member. The Tribunal failed to
account for the fact that the claimants consistently maintained the
Maruti Van's involvement and that the doctor's statement had no
verified source.
8.3 He submits that the deposition of the eye-witness, AW-3
Jaswant Singh, was crucial and should have been given due
weight. AW-3, an independent witness, testified that the Maruti
Van overtook his vehicle and hit the deceased's motorcycle from
behind. This clear and direct evidence identified the offending
vehicle, yet the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate it.
8.4 He further submits that the delay in reporting the vehicle
number is not significant in light of AW-3's reliable testimony. The
Tribunal erred in using this delay to discredit the claim, despite the
fact that such delays are not uncommon in road accident cases.
8.5 He asserts that AW-3's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
was recorded two months after the accident, which was beyond
the claimants' control. Since the statement went unchallenged by
the opposite party, there was no basis for doubting its
authenticity, and the Tribunal's suspicion on this point was
unwarranted.
8.6 He submits that the absence of the investigating officer as a
witness does not weaken the case, as the incident was
[2025:RJ-JD:21947] (5 of 8) [CMA-726/2024]
independently established through AW-3's testimony and
supported by the investigation. The Tribunal gave undue weight to
this aspect, despite the availability of sufficient evidence on
record.
8.7 He further argues that the charge-sheet filed by the police,
while not conclusive of criminal liability, was relevant to establish
the occurrence of the accident and the identity of the vehicle
involved. The Tribunal failed to appreciate this evidentiary value.
8.8 He contends that the defendant's own admission that he was
the owner and driver of the Maruti Van involved in the accident,
when considered along with the eye-witness testimony, was
adequate to establish liability. The Tribunal's rejection of the claim
despite this material evidence was erroneous and unjustified.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
supported the impugned award and sought dismissal of the instant
appeal.
10. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
of learned counsels which are more or less on the same lines as
the grounds taken in the pleadings and 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.
11. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition, inter-alia, citing discrepancies
between the medical records and the claim. Specifically, the
doctor's note referenced a collision between two motorcycles
rather than the van mentioned in the claim petition, which led to
[2025:RJ-JD:21947] (6 of 8) [CMA-726/2024]
rejection of the claim on the basis of lack of corroborative
evidence.
12. The learned Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition rests on
flawed reasoning and an overreliance on a single, uncorroborated
hospital entry in Exhibit A-3, which noted a collision between two
motorcycles. This entry, made by a doctor in a hectic emergency
setting, lacks context and supporting evidence, making it
unreliable as the sole basis for rejecting the claim. The appellants
provided substantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony
from AW-03 Jaswant Singh and police documents like the charge
sheet (Exhibit 1) and Section 164 CrPC statements (Exhibits 14,
15), all pointing to the Maruti Van (RJ 06 UA 2652) as the
offending vehicle. The Tribunal's preference for a secondary
hospital record over primary investigation findings is
disproportionate and unjustified.
13. The learned Tribunal though acknowledged the charge sheet
against the driver, Mahaveer Prasad, but dismissed its weight
without reasoned analysis. A charge sheet, as an outcome of
police investigation, carries significant evidentiary value under
Indian law unless contradicted by cogent evidence, which the
respondents failed to produce. The Tribunal's reliance on cases like
Cholamandalam vs. Smt. Badami (2018) and Pooja Ratnayak vs.
Permanand (2015) is misplaced, as those involved clear proof of
non-involvement of the accused vehicle, unlike the present case
where no counter-evidence was presented.
14. The learned Tribunal pointed out minor discrepancies, such
as the delay in reporting the vehicle number (10 days per AW-02
Madan Singh vs. 18-20 days per AW-03 Jaswant Singh) and the
[2025:RJ-JD:21947] (7 of 8) [CMA-726/2024]
front/rear collision issue, to disbelieve question the appellants'
version. Such inconsistencies are common in accident cases due to
trauma and lack of legal awareness, especially among villagers
like Jaswant Singh, and do not negate the core claim of the Maruti
Van's involvement. The Tribunal's inference of collusion among the
appellants, driver, and police is speculative, unsupported by
evidence of motive or coordination.
15. Pertinently, AW-03 Jaswant Singh, an independent
eyewitness, testified that the Maruti Van overtook his vehicle at
high speed and collided with the deceased's Axel Vicky. His
account is in tune with the charge sheet and police investigation,
yet the Tribunal dismissed it due to the delay in reporting of the
vehicle number. The Tribunal committed a mistake to overlook the
practical realities of rural settings, where immediate reporting may
not occur. The appellants' documentary evidence including the FIR
(Exhibit 2), post-mortem report (Exhibit 5), and vehicle
documents, further corroborate their case, while the respondents
offered no witnesses or evidence to rebut it.
15.1. As against aforesaid documentary evidence, exhibit A-3
is not an initial witness statement but a hospital record prone to
errors, unlike the FIR (Exhibit 2), which, though initially noting an
unknown vehicle, was updated through investigation.
15.2. Furthermore, the driver's admission in the response to
the Section 133 notice (Exhibit 9), acknowledging ownership and
operation of the Maruti Van, was also overlooked by the Tribunal.
While may not be conclusive per se, but it supports the appellants'
case when combined with the charge sheet and eyewitness
[2025:RJ-JD:21947] (8 of 8) [CMA-726/2024]
testimony. The Tribunal's failure to weigh this collectively with
other evidence is a grave error.
16. I am also of the view that the Tribunal improperly shifted the
burden of proof to the appellants to disprove Exhibit A-3's
motorcycle collision entry, despite the respondents' failure to
substantiate their claims of the deceased's negligence or an
alternate vehicle's involvement. Under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, the insurance company bears the burden to prove
exclusions from liability, such as an invalid license or non-
involvement of the insured vehicle, which they did not. The
Tribunal's adopted a flawed approach to dismiss the claim.
17. The scheme envisaged under Motor Vehicles Act aims to
provide swift relief to accident victims' families, requiring only a
preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The appellants' evidence establishes a strong probability of
the Maruti Van's involvement, yet the Tribunal's focus on a
technicality undermines this humanitarian objective. The appeal
thus deserves to be allowed.
18. It is accordingly so ordered. Finding returned by the learned
Tribunal on issue No.1 is reversed and the said issue is decided in
favour of the appellants-claimants. The impugned order is set-
aside. The claim petition is restored to its original number and
learned Tribunal is directed to proceed on merits qua the other
issues.
19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
196-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
