Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Reena vs Hetram (2025:Rj-Jd:22079) on 7 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:22079]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2254/2019
1. Reena Spouse/o Late Sundaram, Aged About 32 Years,
By Caste Bhaat, R/o Ward No.25, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
2. Rahul S/o Late Sundaram, Aged About 12 Years, By Caste
Bhaat, Through Its Natural Guardian (Mother) Reena Wd/
o Late Sundaram, R/o Ward No.25, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
3. Rohit S/o Late Sundaram, Aged About 10 Years, By Caste
Bhaat, Through Its Natural Guardian (Mother) Reena Wd/
o Late Sundaram, R/o Ward No.25, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
4. Ashu S/o Late Sundaram, Aged About 8 Years, By Caste
Bhaat, Through Its Natural Guardian (Mother) Reena Wd/
o Late Sundaram R/o Ward N.25, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. Hetram S/o Chunnaram, By Caste Jat, R/o Sahajrasar,
Tehsil Lunkaransar, District Bikaner (Rajasthan). Driver
Of Jcb Crane No.RJ-07-Ea-0669
2. Kishanlal S/o Padmaram, By Caste Jat, R/o Khiyenra,
Tehsil Lunkaransar, District Bikaner (Rajasthan). Owner
Of Jcb Crane No.RJ-07-Ea-O669
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Office
Panchsati Circle, Sardulganj, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
Insurance Company Vehicle Jcb Crane No.RJ-07-Ea-0669
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi
Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam
Mr. Anil Kaushik
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/05/2025
1. The appellants-claimants (wife and three sons of deceased
Sundaram) are before this Court seeking quashing of the
judgment dated 23.04.2019 passed in M.A.C. Case No.30/2017 by
[2025:RJ-JD:22079] (2 of 7) [CMA-2254/2019]
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar, vide which their claim petition has been rejected.
2. Brief facts first. On 30.08.2016, deceased Sundaram was
sleeping in the temporary camp at 12 kms. from Lunkaransar.
Allegedly, a JCB Crane, bearing registration No.RJ07-EA-669,
being driven rashly & negligently in reverse direction, by driver
Hetram (respondent No.1), caused accident, on account of which,
Sundaram died. At the time of the accident, deceased was 30-
year-old and was earning Rs.10,000/- by playing the Dhol &
Shehnai at weddings and other auspicious events. In relation to
the accident, an FIR No.259/2016 dated 17.11.2016 was
registered under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and after
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Respondent No. 1
before the competent court. The claimants filed a claim petition
bearing Claim Case No.30/2017, against the respondents under
the Motor Vehicles Act. An amount of Rs.24,70,000/- was claimed
as compensation towards loss of income, pain & suffering, mental
agony, funeral expenses etc.
3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 (driver & owner) filed their reply
and denied that the accident occurred with the offending vehicle.
The insurance company (respondent No.3) also filed its reply on
05.03.2018 and denied its liability. They sought dismissal of the
claim petition.
4. The learned Tribunal framed following issues, English
translation of which reads as below:-
"1. Whether respondent No. 1, on 30.08.2016, while reversing the
JCB vehicle bearing registration number RJ 07 EA 0669 at high
speed and negligently, ran over Sundaram, son of Budhram, who was
sleeping, thereby causing injuries that led to Sundaram's death?
[2025:RJ-JD:22079] (3 of 7) [CMA-2254/2019]
2. Whether, in view of the objections raised by the respondents,
the petitioners-applicants are not entitled to receive compensation?
3. Whether the petitioners-applicants are entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.24,70,000/-?
4. Relief?"
5. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties,
the learned Tribunal decided all the issues against appellants-
claimants and dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the learned
Tribunal has erred in deciding issue Nos.1 and 2 against the
appellants holding that the accident was not caused by the JCB
Crane No.RJ07-EA-0669. He argues that the learned Tribunal has
failed to appreciate the fact with regard to vehicle, the witnesses
present on the place of accident and other effected members, who
have clearly deposed the fact that the accident was caused by the
JCB Crane No.RJ07-EA-0669. He argues that the learned Tribunal
has not considered the version of witness AW-1 Reena, who
clearly deposed that respondent No. 1 -0 Hetram operated the JCB
and accident was caused by the JCB Crane No.RJ07-EA-0669.
6.1. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Tribunal
erred in summarily deciding other issues without providing
findings on merits. The respondents failed to substantiate their
claims with evidence, and their statements lacked a factual basis.
Despite this the Tribunal rejected the claimants' claim without
proper appreciation of the facts, making the decision
unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
6.2. Moreover, learned counsel argues that the respondents failed
to prove that the JCB Crane No.RJ07-EA-0669 was not involved in
the accident. Respondent No.1 did not provide any evidence
[2025:RJ-JD:22079] (4 of 7) [CMA-2254/2019]
regarding the crane's location or its whereabouts at the time of
the incident, nor did he claims false implication or submit any
credible proof. In the absence of such evidence, the judgment is
unsustainable and deserves to be quashed.
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 hereafter.
8. It transpires that the claim petition of the appellants herein
was dismissed by the learned Tribunal inter alia on the ground
that the registration number of the offending vehicle i.e. crane
(No.RJ07-EA-0669) was found to be not of the same vehicle,
which was involved in the accident. It has been noted by the
learned Tribunal that an FIR qua the accident was also lodged,
wherein, specific number of another crane (No.RJ7-EA-384) has
been given. Subsequently, after investigation charge-sheet was
filed substituting registration number i.e. RJ07-EA-669.
9. The learned Tribunal concluded that the claimants failed to
prove that the accident was caused by JCB Crane RJ07-EA-669,
driven by Hetram, due to discrepancies in the vehicle registration
number between the FIR (mentioning RJ07-EA-384) and the
charge sheet (mentioning RJ07-EA-669). This finding appears to
be flawed. Let us see how.
9.1. The Tribunal placed undue weight on the discrepancy
between the FIR and charge-sheet without adequately considering
the investigative process. The FIR, lodged on 17.11.2016, initially
[2025:RJ-JD:22079] (5 of 7) [CMA-2254/2019]
mentioned JCB RJ07-EA-384, but after a police investigation, the
charge-sheet (Exhibit-P2) was filed against the driver of JCB RJ07-
EA-669. The police investigation, which included witness
statements, seizure memos (Exhibit-P11), and other documentary
evidence (Exhibits-P3 to P21), concluded that RJ07-EA-669 was
the offending vehicle. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that an FIR
is a preliminary document, and the charge-sheet, based on a
detailed investigation, carries greater evidentiary weight. The
absence of an explicit explanation for the change in vehicle
number does not negate the investigation's findings, especially
when supported by multiple documents.
9.2. The Tribunal also overlooked and misappreciated the
consistent testimonies of AW-1 Reena (the deceased's wife) and
AW-2 Khakooram, both eyewitnesses, who unequivocally stated
that the accident was caused by a JCB driven by Hetram, resulting
in Sundaram's death. Reena's testimony, corroborated by
Khakooram, detailed the incident, including the JCB running over
Sundaram while he was resting/sleeping. These statements are in
tune with the charge-sheet's conclusion that JCB RJ07-EA-669 was
involved. The Tribunal's dismissal of this testimony based on
cross-examination admissions about the FIR's vehicle number
(RJ07-EA-384) is misguided, as witnesses may not accurately
recall registration numbers in initial statements, especially under
distress. The Tribunal failed to consider the overall reliability of
their account, which was consistent with the police findings based
on expert investigation.
9.3. The Tribunal noted that Exhibit-P5 (a letter dated
31.08.2016) and Exhibit-P3 (Panchnama) did not specify the
[2025:RJ-JD:22079] (6 of 7) [CMA-2254/2019]
vehicle number, and Exhibit-A-4 (complaint dated 17.11.2016)
mentioned RJ07-EA-384. However, it ignored the comprehensive
documentary evidence supporting the involvement of RJ07-EA-
669, viz. JCB Seizure Memo (Exhibit-P11) confirming the seizure
of JCB RJ07-EA-669 in connection with the accident; and police
statements (Exhibits P14-P16) of Reena, Omprakash, and
Khakooram's statements to the police implicated Hetram and the
JCB; and charge-sheet (Exhibit-P2) filed against Hetram for
driving JCB RJ07-EA-669, indicating the police's conclusion after
investigation; and postmortem report and other records (Exhibits-
P6-P10) which corroborate the cause of death and the
circumstances of the accident in confirmation with the claimants'
narrative.
9.4. Even the principle of burden of proof also seems to have
been misapplied by the Tribunal. It placed an excessive burden
on the claimants to prove the vehicle's identity beyond reasonable
doubt, a standard more suited to criminal trials than civil claims
under the Motor Vehicles Act. In motor accident claim cases, the
standard is preponderance of probabilities. The claimants provided
substantial evidence--eyewitness testimonies, police investigation
outcomes, and documentary proof--sufficient to establish that JCB
RJ07-EA-669 was likely involved. The respondents, particularly the
driver (Hetram) and owner, failed to produce any evidence to
refute this, such as proof that the JCB was elsewhere at the time
of the accident. The Tribunal's reliance on the respondents' bare
denial, without requiring them to substantiate their claim, is
legally unsound.
[2025:RJ-JD:22079] (7 of 7) [CMA-2254/2019]
9.5. The Tribunal acknowledged the FIR (Exhibit-P1) and charge-
sheet (Exhibit-P2) but dismissed their relevance due to the vehicle
number discrepancy. However, the charge-sheet's filing against
Hetram for JCB RJ07-EA-669, supported by police investigation,
indicates that the authorities found credible evidence of this
vehicle's involvement.
10. While the above was being dictated, learned counsel for the
respective parties intervened and submitted that they are ad idem
that the claim petition be remanded back for fresh adjudication on
merits of the claim as per vehicle number mentioned in the
charge-sheet filed by the prosecution in the criminal case arising
out of FIR qua accident in question.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the
claim petition is restored back to its original number to be decided
afresh by treating the JCB Crane bearing registration No. RJ07-EA-
669 as the offending vehicle and render finding on merits on rest
of the issues in accordance with law.
12. The instant misc. appeal is disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
178-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
