Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amrit Bhai vs Mohan Bhai And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:40376) on 10 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:40376]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 405/2004
Amrit Bhai S/o. Gova Bhai, B/c Patel, R/o. Mahadevpura
(Chhala) Tehsil Gandhi Nagar (Gujarat).
--- Appellant/Claimant
V/s
1. Mohan Bhai S/o. Shri Roop Chand, B/c Sindhi, R/o. Delhi
Gate, Longia Mohalla, Ajmer (Raj.). {Dispensed with}
2. Mohan Lal S/o. Chelaram, B/c Lakhwani, R/o. 16/225, Khari
Kui, Ajmer (Raj.).
3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Divisional
Manager, Chopasani Road, Near Bombay Motors, Jodhpur.
4. G.S.R.T.C. through Manager General, G.S.R.T.C. Geeta Mandir
Road, Vahan Vyuvhar Bhawan, Ahmedabad (Jamalpur)
(Gujarat).
---Non-claimants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Surana.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bachawat.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
10/09/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment
dated 25.11.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road, District Sirohi
(hereinafter referred to as 'learned Tribunal'), whereby, the
claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present appeal are that the
present appellant was the driver of a Bus bearing registration
No. GJ-1-Z-4083 of Gujarat Roadways. While traveling from
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:31:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40376] (2 of 5) [CMA-405/2004]
Mount Abu to Abu Road, the bus met with an accident on
30.10.1994 with a Bus bearing registration No. RNZ-21,
which was coming from Abu Road to Mount Abu. In the
accident, the appellant sustained multiple injuries. A criminal
case was also filed against the appellant, however, in that
case he was acquitted. In these circumstances, the appellant
preferred a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for
compensation. The Tribunal, after framing the issues and
appreciating the evidence on record, has rejected the claim
of the appellant recording the findings on Issue Nos.1 & 3
against the appellant vide judgment dated 25.11.2003.
Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that
the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue Nos.1
& 3 are incorrect as the learned Tribunal has not appreciated
the complete and correct factual aspect of the matter.
Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the
Naksha Mauka goes to show that the site of accident is the
centre of the road and since the appellant was driving the
bus on its correct side, the accident occurred on account of
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus coming
from Abu Road to Mount Abu.
5. Learned counsel further submits that a close reading of the
Naksha Mauka goes to show that the appellant was not
negligent, therefore, he cannot be fastened with the sole
liability of the negligence resulting into the accident in the
present case. He also submits that even in the cross-
examination of the appellant, who appeared in the witness
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:31:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40376] (3 of 5) [CMA-405/2004]
box as AW-1, no suggestive question has been asked, which
may show that the appellant was negligent in driving the
bus.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
testimony of AW2- Choudhary Sanjay Kumar cannot be
discarded on the ground that his name does not reflect in
any proceedings of the criminal case. He further submits that
even in the cross examination of AW2, nothing has come on
record, which shows that the AW2 was not present at the
time of accident and no suggestive question has been asked
relating to the criminal case from AW2, therefore, learned
Tribunal has committed an error while discarding the
testimony of AW1 and AW2. In these circumstances, learned
counsel submits that the findings recorded by the learned
Tribunal with respect to fastening the entire liability of
negligence upon the appellant, is incorrect and arbitrary. He
further submits that the driver of the bus coming from the
opposite side was partially responsible for the accident in the
present case. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal
may be allowed and the appellant may be awarded an
appropriate compensation on the principle of contributory
negligence in the present case.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance
Company vehemently supported the judgment rendered by
the learned Tribunal and submits that the learned Tribunal
has not committed any wrong in appreciating the evidence in
the present case and has rightly come to the conclusion that
the appellant was solely responsible for the accident which
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:31:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40376] (4 of 5) [CMA-405/2004]
occurred on 30.10.1994. Learned counsel, therefore, submits
that no interference is warranted by this Court in the present
case and prays that the present appeal may be dismissed.
8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case including the
impugned judgment.
9. The factum of the accident is not disputed and the fact that
the appellant has sustained injuries is also not disputed. To
appreciate the correct factual aspect of the matter, it is
relevant that the Naksha Mauka prepared by the Police in the
criminal case is required to be closely read along with the
statements of AW1 and AW2. A close reading of the Naksha
Mauka shows that the site of accident is almost the centre of
the road and the bus, which was on the left side of the road
was coming from Mount Abu and going towards Abu Road
and the other bus was climbing up from Abu Road to Mount
Abu and if the collision point is the centre of the road, then it
cannot be said that it was only the fault of the bus coming
from Mount Abu driven by the present appellant.
10. It is further noted that in the cross examination of present
appellant- Amrit Bhai recorded as AW-1 and Choudhary
Sanjay Bhai AW-2, no suggestive question has been asked
with respect to the negligence and, therefore, this Court is of
the view that the testimony of these two witnesses cannot
be discarded. The findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal
on Issue Nos.1 & 3 that the appellant was negligent in
driving his bus causing the accident, is not just, proper and
correct.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:31:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40376] (5 of 5) [CMA-405/2004]
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, taking into
consideration the site of accident and Naksha Mauka, it can
be inferred that the driver of the bus coming from Abu Road
to Mount Abu was also equally responsible for causing the
accident. Therefore, on the principle of contributory
negligence, the appellant is required to be suitably
compensated. Since the Issue Nos. 1 & 3 have been decided
against the appellant, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not
computed the award. Taking into consideration the injuries
suffered by the appellant, it will be in the fitness of things to
set aside the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on
Issue Nos.1 & 3 and remand the matter back to the learned
Tribunal for re-determining the compensation amount on the
basis of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% for
deciding the Issue No.2.
12. In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is
disposed of and the matter is remanded back to the learned
Tribunal with a direction that the same be decided at the
earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13. Record of the case be sent back to the learned Tribunal
forthwith.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
13-Shahenshah/Sunils-
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:31:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
