Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 234 (RAJ)

THAWRI v. HARJI LAL

2004-02-19

PRAKASH TATIA

body2004
Judgment PRAKASH TATIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is against the award dated 10/12/2003 by which the claim petition of the claimants was dismissed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salumbhar (A. D. J. No. 2), Udaipur. The Claims tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimants only on the ground that the deceased himself was the driver of the vehicle and because of some problem, the vehicle was stopped. The trolley attached to the vehicle was lifted with the help of jack and deceased was trying to repair the trolley. At that time, the jack slipped out resulting in the accident that caused the injuries to the deceased Devilal and he ultimately died. The Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove that respondent harji Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The Tribunal also considered the evidence as well as documents placed on record by the claimants and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the claimants have stated factually wrong facts and they failed to prove any accident from the use of the motor vehicle, there-fore, the claim petition, which is factually wrong and is also not maintainable, was dismissed by the Tribunal. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that there was oral evidence of the witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve those witnesses. It is also submitted that though there are pleadings in the claim petition itself that the trolley attached to the tractor was on jack and bearing of the trolley broke down and the vehicle was in the process of repairing, still it is accident from the vehicle as the trolley attached to the motor vehicle is a complete vehicle. ( 4 ) I perused the reasons given in the award. It is clear from the facts of the case that after investigation, the police found that the deceased Devilal himself was guilty. The police submitted F. I. R. in criminal case. There is a clear mention in the f. I. R. , copy of which is placed on record as AN 3 that the deceased Devilal was the driver of the tractor. It is clearly mentioned that the tractor was standing and trolley was put on jack and he was repairing the bearing of the trolley. There is a clear mention in the f. I. R. , copy of which is placed on record as AN 3 that the deceased Devilal was the driver of the tractor. It is clearly mentioned that the tractor was standing and trolley was put on jack and he was repairing the bearing of the trolley. At that time, jack slipped out and the trolley fell upon the deceased Devilal. It is also clear that the claimants just to mislead the Tribunal, produced only one page of the F. I. R. whereas other documents exposed the claimants. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances, when the deceased Devilal died due to the accident when he was repairing the trolley attached to the vehicle, which was not in motion, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the claim petition. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, I do not find any force in this appeal. Hence, the appeal of the appellants-claimants is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.