Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Lal vs Shera Ram Bajiya (2025:Rj-Jd:21949) on 7 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:21949]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3028/2018
1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Lalu Ram, Aged About 49 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Bawari Mohalla, Manglana, Police Station
Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
2. Smt. Phephali W/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 47 Years,
B/c Meghwal, R/o Bawari Mohalla, Manglana, Police
Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
3. Tiku Ram S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 22 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Bawari Mohalla, Manglana, Police Station
Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
4. Dinesh S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 19 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Bawari Mohalla, Manglana, Police Station
Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
5. Anil S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 17 Years, Minor
Through Their Natural Guardian. B/c Meghwal, R/o
Bawari Mohalla, Manglana, Police Station Parbatsar,
District Nagaur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Shera Ram Bajiya S/o Shri Rekha Ram, B/c Jat, R/o
Village Loroli, Tehsil Makarana, District Nagaur. (Driver)
2. Heera Ram S/o Shri Rekha Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village
Loroli, Tehsil Makarana, District Nagaur. (Driver)
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Office Address
- Jai Shiv Chowk, Station Road, Makarana, District
Nagaur. (Insurance Company)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh Mertia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Joshi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/05/2025
1. Aggrieved by the judgment / award dated 20.07.2018
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar, District
Nagaur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.19/2014, vide which the
Tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimants for a sum of
Rs.96,71,000/-, the appellants are before this Court by way of the
instant appeal seeking quashing of the same.
[2025:RJ-JD:21949] (2 of 7) [CMA-3028/2018]
2. Briefly speaking, the succinct facts are that the appellants filed
a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Parbatsar (District Nagaur), for the death of Nanda Ram in a road
accident on 15.09.2013. Nanda Ram was riding a motorcycle with
Kailash Meghwal and Tulchi Ram when a speeding truck (RJ-37-
GA-0721), allegedly driven negligently by respondent no. 1,
collided with them near Manglana. Nanda Ram was crushed and
died on the spot.
2.1. The appellants sought ₹96.71 lakhs in compensation.
Respondents no. 1 and 2 (driver and owner) denied liability, citing
the truck's insurance with respondent no. 3 (insurance company).
The insurer admitted coverage but denied other claims, arguing
policy violations such as the driver lacking a valid license and the
truck lacking a permit. It also denied the truck's involvement and
alleged the deceased was at fault.
2.2. The Tribunal framed five issues and, after evaluating the
evidence, dismissed the claim on 20.07.2018, finding that the
appellants failed to prove the key issues. Thus the appellants have
now appealed against the dismissal of the claim petition.
3. Learned Tribunal framed five issues, English translation of
which is as follows:-
"1. Whether on 15-09-2013, the driver of vehicle truck number
RJ-37-GA-0721, respondent number 1, caused the accident by
driving the vehicle at high speed and negligently, resulting in the
death of the deceased Nandaram?
2. Whether respondent number 1, the vehicle driver, was
working under the employment of respondent number 2, the vehicle
owner, and whether this accident occurred during that
employment?
3. What is the effect of the preliminary objections and special
pleas presented by the respondents?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive a
compensation amount of ₹96,71,000/- from the respondents?
[2025:RJ-JD:21949] (3 of 7) [CMA-3028/2018]
5. Relief ?"
4. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties,
the learned Tribunal decided all the issues against appellants-
claimants and dismissed the claim petition.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants argues that the
Tribunal erred in law and fact by unjustly dismissing the claim and
deciding all issues in favor of the respondents. The Tribunal placed
undue emphasis on the one-day delay in filing the FIR and the
absence of the driver's name in it, ignoring credible eyewitness
testimony (AW-2 Kailash) and the charge sheet that clearly
implicated the truck driver. It wrongly accepted the insurance
company's claim that the truck owner was also injured in the
accident, relying on unreliable testimony from NAW-1, who
admitted to not conducting proper investigation or verifying
hospital records.
5.1. The appellants' counsel would contend that the Tribunal
failed to assess issues independently, relying instead on a flawed
investigation based only on documents. The FIR and charge sheet
specifically identified the offending truck, and judicial precedent
allows for a less strict standard of proof in motor accident claims.
Furthermore, the Tribunal ignored vital evidence regarding the
deceased's income and future prospects, thus failing to determine
just compensation. The conclusion that the truck was not involved
in the accident was based on conjecture, not sound judicial
reasoning. The rejection of the claim was, therefore, legally and
factually erroneous.
[2025:RJ-JD:21949] (4 of 7) [CMA-3028/2018]
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argues in favor of the
award and supports the reasons given therein.
7. 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 hereinafter.
8. Speaking of the impugned award, perusal thereof reveals
that the accident on 15-09-2013 resulted in the death of
Nandaram. Claimants' produced two witnesses: AW-1
(Nandaram's father) and AW-2 Kailash (alleged eyewitness). AW-1
admitted he was not present at the scene and gave inconsistent
statements about who was present. AW-2 Kailash claimed to be an
eyewitness but gave contradictory and unreliable testimony,
especially regarding identifying the truck number in the dark,
despite being unable to read English. The FIR was delayed by a
day, despite the police allegedly being present at the scene shortly
after the accident.
8.1. Respondent No. 3 presented NAW-1 Anand Singh, who
submitted medical records and police station diary entries showing
that the registered owner of the truck, Heeraram, was also injured
in the accident. The evidence suggested that Heeraram, the truck
owner, was riding with the deceased and others at the time of the
accident, contradicting the petitioners' version and indicating a
possible collusion to implicate his own truck to claim insurance.
Further, the seizure memo and mechanical inspection report of the
[2025:RJ-JD:21949] (5 of 7) [CMA-3028/2018]
truck showed no signs of accident damage, and no prompt
investigation was done into Heeraram's involvement or the truck's
role. Basis thereof, the Tribunal concluded that the accident likely
involved an unknown vehicle, and truck number RJ-37-GA-0721
was falsely implicated.
9. It transpires that the learned Tribunal's dismissal of the claim
petition was heavily premised on the report of the insurance
company's investigator and the defense evidence of NAW-1.
However, an insurance investigator's report is not conclusive. It is,
at best, a piece of private inquiry initiated by a party with a
financial interest in the outcome (the insurer). The Tribunal should
not have treated such a report as gospel. Unless corroborated by
neutral evidence, same lacks independent probative value.
The Tribunal ought to have independently assessed the credibility
of evidence, not merely accept private findings, particularly in a
welfare legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act, where benefit of
doubt should lean in favor of the victims. The FIR and the charge
sheet were filed after police investigation, clearly implicating the
truck RJ-37-GA-0721 and its driver under relevant IPC provisions.
A charge sheet filed after thorough investigation by competent
police authority carries more evidentiary value than a private
report. The Tribunal thus failed to reconcile or even analyze why
the official investigation (culminating in prosecution) should be
disregarded in favor of a private version by an interested party.
9.1. Moreover, Kailash, an injured eyewitness, testified under
oath to the presence and involvement of the truck RJ-37-GA-
0721. The learned Tribunal dismissed his testimony largely on the
[2025:RJ-JD:21949] (6 of 7) [CMA-3028/2018]
ground that he could not read English and it was dark at the time
of the accident. An eyewitness credibility is not to be undermined
merely because of his inability to read vehicle numbers--especially
where other circumstantial facts support his version. His injury
and presence at the scene were corroborated by medical records
and police documentation.
10. Furthermore, the one-day delay in lodging the FIR was also
erroneously treated as a weakness by the learned Tribunal. In
traumatic, fatal accidents, some delay is natural. What matters is
whether the FIR was filed within a reasonable time and whether
the delay was explained. Here, in the case in hand it was
explained that the police had already reached the spot. Be that as
it may, the delay did not render the FIR false.
11. Thus, it appears that the Tribunal's committed a fundamental
error i.e. it gave undue weight to an insurer's self-serving
investigation while ignoring police investigation findings, credible
eyewitness testimony, and the basic purpose of the Motor Vehicles
Act. From the evidence on record, it seems that the offending
vehicle was a Truck bearing No.RJ-37-GA-0721.
12. At this stage, in course of arguments, when learned counsel
for the respondents was posed a query to respond to the
observations as above, viz-a-viz the evidence other than the self
serving report of the insurance investigator, he candidly states
that he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the
Tribunal to be adjudicated on merits of the petition, rather than
dismissal on the ground of non-involvement of the aforesaid
vehicle.
[2025:RJ-JD:21949] (7 of 7) [CMA-3028/2018]
13. In the premise, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is
set-aside. The claim petition is restored to its original number and
learned Tribunal is directed to proceed on merits against owner /
driver and insurer of the Truck No.RJ-37-GA-0721 and proceed on
merits in accordance with law.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
160-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
