Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2130 (RAJ)

Heera Lal Saini v. Banwari Lal

2008-09-10

GUMAN SINGH

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Both the parties are agreed that this appeal may be finally disposed of at this stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the injured Heera Lal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bandikui, Distt. Dausa vide judgment dated 3.9.2003 whereby claim of the claimant-injured was dismissed on the ground that claimant could not prove that the accident had taken place with the offending vehicle No.RPI-7125 as per finding on issue no.1. 4. As per the fact of the case, accident took place on 8.2.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. When the injured was going on cycle from Kishanpura to Badiyar and he was dashed by one Jeep No.RPI-7125 wherein injured sustained injuries resulting into 7% disability on account of injuries sustained. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,800/-on account of injuries sustained as per finding on issue no.3 but the claim was dismissed on the ground that claimant could not prove that the accident had taken place with the offending vehicle as per finding on issue no.1. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that FIR was lodged by one Manohar Lal and in the FIR, Government jeep No.RPL-7125 was shown to be involved in the accident but in fact it was vehicle no.RPI-7125 involved in the accident. It is further submitted that site inspection of the incident was taken place on the same day of the accident in which also offending vehicle was shown as RPI-7125 and police also filed challan against the said vehicle after investigation. But the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective in giving a finding that involvement of offending vehicle no. RPI3 7125 was not proved. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. It is further submitted that in the final report Ex.7 submitted by the police, jeep no.RPZ-7125 was mentioned in the description of the incident and, as such, it has not been proved by the claimant that the vehicle RPI-7125 was involved. 7. It is further submitted that in the final report Ex.7 submitted by the police, jeep no.RPZ-7125 was mentioned in the description of the incident and, as such, it has not been proved by the claimant that the vehicle RPI-7125 was involved. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that in this case FIR was lodged by one Manohar Lal and though in the body of FIR, offending vehicle no.RPL-7125 is mentioned but in the site inspection map prepared on the following day of the accident, vehicle NO.RPI-7125 has been mentioned. In the statement deposed before the learned Tribunal, the claimant injured has deposied that the offending vehicle was RPI-7125. In the final report Ex.7 filed by the police, which has been filed against Banwari lal, number of vehicle is mentioned as RPI-7125 and, as such, it is revealed that offending vehicle was RPI-7125 and not RPL-7125 as stated in the FIR and, as such, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the claimant has not been able to prove involvement of offending vehicle as RPI-7125, is not sustainable and deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, finding on issue no.3 is set aside accordingly the appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed and the amount awarded by learned Tribunal under issue no.3 amounting to Rs.25,800/- deserves to be awarded against the respondents jointly and severally. 8. Accordingly, award of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the sum of Rs.25,800/- is awarded to the claimant as against the respondents jointly and severally with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till realisation and shall be paid within a period of three months. The appeal is allowed accordingly.