Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar And Anr vs Rambai And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:39681) on 8 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:39681]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 242/2004
1. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal, Aged about 33 years, by
caste Agarwal, R/o 67 J Block Sri Ganganagar.
2. Harish S/o Sh. Amar Chand, Aged about 35 years, by caste
Agarwal, R/o 6 J Block, Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rambai wd/o Late Sh. Prem Chand.
2. Kusuam D/o Sh. Prem Chand, Aged about 12 years.
3. Vijay S/o Sh. Prem Chand, Aged about 9 years.
4. Rachana D/o Sh. Prem Chand, Aged about 7 years.
Respondent No.2 to 4 through their mother Rambai Natural
Guardian R/o Uda Ram Chowk Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.
5. Champa Devi w/o Sh. Sita Ram Kasayap, R/o Udaram Chowk,
Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.
Respondent-Non-Applicant No.3.
The New India Insurance Company Limited, Sri Ganganagar
(This Respondent-Non-Applicant deleted by the MACT Court, Sri
Ganganagar as the Motor Cycle was not insured at the relevant
time).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.R. Goyal.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
08/09/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and
award dated 01.07.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the claim petition preferred by
the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 5 was allowed and a
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 03:55:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39681] (2 of 5) [CMA-242/2004]
compensation of an amount of Rs.2,34,000/- was awarded in
favour of the claimants.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present appeal are that the
present appellant- Sunil Kumar was driving a Motorcycle bearing
No. RJ 13 M-8071 and met with an accident on 19.04.1997 with a
Bicycle, which was being driven by Shri Prem Chand. The accident
occurred near Sukharia Circle at around 9:00 pm. In the accident,
Shri Prem Chand, who was on the Bicycle sustained injuries and
was taken to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. In
these circumstances, the claimants, who are the wife and children
of Shri Prem Chand filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar and the learned Tribunal after
framing four issues decided the claim petition vide order dated
01.07.2003 and a compensation of Rs.2,34,000/- was awarded in
favour of the claimants. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that
the Motorcycle was being driven by the appellant- Sunil Kumar on
its right (correct) side and for no fault of the appellant, the
accident occurred. He further submits that even as per the
statement of eye witness AW2- Om Prakash, it has come on
record that he was having a cabin (Redi) of Juice but, it is not
clear that whether he was running a cabin (Redi) of Sugarcane
Juice or Sweet Lemon Juice. He further submits that if the
statement of AW2- Om Prakash read in totality, it shows that he is
a planted witness. Learned counsel further submits that since
AW2- Om Prakash was a close relative of brother-in-law of the
deceased, therefore, he has been produced in the witness box to
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 03:55:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39681] (3 of 5) [CMA-242/2004]
prove the factum of the accident, thus, he is not a credible
witness.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that as per
the statement of AW3- Ram Bhai Patel, it has come on record that
the claimants have also received certain compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act and, therefore, the learned Tribunal
has committed an error while passing the order dated 01.07.2003.
He further submits that even in the criminal case, the appellant
has been acquitted, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon
him for paying the compensation on account of death of Shri Prem
Chand in the present case. He, therefore, prays that the appeal
may be allowed and the judgment and award dated 01.07.2003
may be quashed and set aside.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have
gone through the relevant record of the case.
7. As per the facts noted by the Tribunal, it has come on record
that on 19.04.1997, Shri Prem Chand, who was on a Bicycle, met
with an accident near Sukharia Circle at around 9:00 pm with the
Motorcycle, which was being driven by the present appellant- Sunil
Kumar. On account of having sustained injuries in the accident,
Shri Prem Chand was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed
to those injuries, therefore, the claim petition was filed.
8. On the issue framed before the Tribunal, it was proved by
cogent evidence that the appellant and the Motorcycle driven by
him were involved in the accident in which Shri Prem Chand
sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to those injuries.
Learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No.1 has held that as
per the material available on record, the appellant was involved in
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 03:55:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39681] (4 of 5) [CMA-242/2004]
the accident though the contributory negligence has also been
fastened upon the deceased Shri Prem Chand.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that
the appellant has wrongly been entangled in the present case,
appears to be incorrect because as per the evidence of AW2- Om
Prakash, it is clear that the appellant was the driver of the
Motorcycle by which the accident was occurred and Shri Prem
Chand sustained injuries and ultimately after having taken to the
hospital succumbed to those injuries.
10. A reading of the statement of AW2- Om Prakash, this Court
is convinced that he is an eye witness to the incident and he is not
a framed or fixed witness for getting the compensation in the
present case. Further, as per the statement of AW3- Ram Bhai
Patel, it has not been proved that the claimants have received any
compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and there
is nothing on record to show that the claimants have received any
compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore,
the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned
Tribunal has committed an error while passing the order dated
01.07.2003 fastening the liability of payment of compensation in
the present case, is noted to be rejected.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal
has scanned through the entire material and evidence brought
before it and has rightly awarded the compensation after
evaluating the evidence available on record. In the opinion of this
Court, even the acquittal in the criminal case will not be a ground
for not paying any compensation to the claimants in the present
case.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 03:55:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39681] (5 of 5) [CMA-242/2004]
12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the judgment and award dated 01.07.2003
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar.
The present appeal, therefore, fails and the same is hereby
dismissed.
13. Since nobody appears on behalf of the respondents-
claimants, therefore, the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority,
Sri Ganganagar is directed to make suitable arrangements to
ensure that the compensation awarded in the present case be paid
to the claimants.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary of the
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Sri Ganganagar for
implementation of the judgment and award dated 01.07.2003
passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by this Court.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
10-Shahenshah/SunilS-
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 03:55:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
