Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 97 (RAJ)

Shanti Lal v. Kalu Ram

2008-01-14

MANAK MOHTA

body2008
Judgment Manak Mohta, J.—The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the judgment dt. 15.04.2006 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulabpura (Bhilwara) in Claim Case No. 72/2003, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the injured-claimant. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20.07.2002 in the night at around 10.45 p.m. when the claimant-Shanti Lal after completing his work at ‘Gulabpura Madira Sangh’ was going to Vijaynagar by his jeep No. RPA-433 and when he reached near the ‘gate of khari river’, a roadways bus No. RJ-06P-1354 which was coming from the side of Vijaynagar and was being driven by its driver-Kalu Ram in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with the right mud-guard of the jeep, as a result of which, the claimant sustained simple and grievous injuries. 3. An FIR of the incident was lodged by the claimant-Shanti Lal himself on 02.08.2002 (after 13 days of occurrence) at P. S. Gulabpura being FIR No. 199/2002 for offence under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. 4. The claimant submitted claim petition before the learned Tribunal under Secs. 140, 166 of M.V. Act on 09.04.2003 praying for awarding adequate compensation on the basis of the injuries sustained to him. A joint reply was submitted by respondents No.1 and 2 on 19.05.2004. In the reply, the averments made in the claim petition were denied outrightly for want of knowledge. The claim was stated to be without any foundation. It was further stated that no accident was caused by the roadways bus. It was further submitted that the claimant has filed a false claim on incorrect facts and has claimed exaggerated amount, which deserves to be dismissed. It was alleged that as matter of fact, the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the jeep driver i.e. the claimant himself. Thus, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. 5. It was further submitted that the claimant has filed a false claim on incorrect facts and has claimed exaggerated amount, which deserves to be dismissed. It was alleged that as matter of fact, the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the jeep driver i.e. the claimant himself. Thus, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues, as under : ß1- vk;k D;k fnukad 20-07-2002 dks jk=h 10-45 cts izkFkhZ efnjk la?k vkfQl ls viuh thi la[;k vkj-ih-,- 433 dks ysdj fot;uxj tk jgk Fkk fd lkeus ls ,d jksM+ost cl ua- vkj-ts- 06&ih 1354 ds pkyd us mä cl dks rst xfr ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj mä nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh ftlesa izkFkhZ ds nkfgus gkFk dh dksuh esa xEHkhj pksV dkfjr gq;h\ 2- vk;k D;k vizkFkhZ la- 1 o 2 ds tokc nkosa esa yh x;h vkifÙk;ksa ds vk/kkj ij mä Dyse [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\ 3- vU; vuqrks"kAÞ 6. During trial of the case, the parties produced evidence and also submitted documents. 7. The learned Tribunal at the conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dt. 15.04.2006 did not find the involvement of the concerned roadways bus in the accident and dismissed the claim petition with costs. Hence, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the finding, this appeal has been preferred by the claimant. The notices of the appeal were issued. 8. During the course of arguments, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the claim petition has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 13 days, that created doubt with regard to involvement of the roadways but it was urged that the learned Tribunal has not considered the cause of delay in lodging the report, thus, the finding is not sustainable. It is submitted that the delay alone could not be a ground for rejecting the claim. It was urged that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are civil Court, thus, on the basis of probabilities they have to reach their own findings and on that basis they have to conclude the matter but they should not base on mere late filing of FIR and conclude that the claim was false. It was urged that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are civil Court, thus, on the basis of probabilities they have to reach their own findings and on that basis they have to conclude the matter but they should not base on mere late filing of FIR and conclude that the claim was false. It is submitted that after investigation, the report was found to be correct and the police has filed challan against the driver of the concerned roadways bus, meaning thereby, that the involvement of the vehicle was very much proved but the learned Tribunal has totally ignored this aspect of the matter and has not considered the same in its right perspective. It is urged that the result of criminal case was not material because that is based on different points. It is stated that no ulterior motive to file false claim petition as alleged was proved by the opposite side. 9. It is also contended on behalf of the claimant that the claimant-appellant himself who got injured in the same accident and he gave out detailed facts and also duly explained the delay caused in lodging the FIR that he was under-treatment and he remained hospitalized as an indoor patient for 10 days at Bhilwara Hospital and after his coming back he lodged the report and there is no rebuttal from the other side. In that situation, the statement of injured-claimant cannot be ignored outrightly. The delay would not be fatal to his claim case, but the learned Tribunal has not given due weightage to the evidence of the injured-claimant, thus, the finding on issue No.1 is perverse and is liable to be quashed. 10. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has not proceeded as per law. No issue was framed with regard to compensation. The learned Tribunal has made up its mind to dismiss the claim. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the judgment of the learned Tribunal be set aside and the case be sent back for deciding afresh. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment stating that the Tribunal after discussing the evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the involvement of the vehicle in accident is not proved, therefore, no interference is required. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment stating that the Tribunal after discussing the evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the involvement of the vehicle in accident is not proved, therefore, no interference is required. The judgment deserves to be maintained and the appeal filed by the claimant/appellant deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have considered the rival contention of both the sides and have perused the findings and conclusions drawn thereon and have also gone through the record of the case. 13. Before adverting to the contentions, it would be better to appreciate the evidence leg by the appellant’s side before the learned Tribunal. The claimant-Shantilal stated that on 20.07.2002 accident occurred wherein he got injured. He was shifted Gulabpura Hospital to Bhilwara Hospital where he remained hospitalized for 10 days where he had undergone operation on his hand and thereafter he lodged a report. The police filed challan against the roadways bus driver-Kalu Ram. DW-1 bus driver Kalu Ram in his statement before the Court denied to have caused any accident on 20.07.2002 on Gulabpura-Vijaynagar route but he admitted that on 20.08.2002 he was the driver of the said bus. He also admitted that challan was filed against him but stated that he has been acquitted in that case. 14.It is revealed from the record that after investigation the police has filed challan against the roadways bus driver Kalu Ram, that prima facie shows the involvement of roadways bus is proved. Thus, mere acquittal of the driver of that bus will not effect the conclusion of this case. From the perusal of the evidence and the record available on file, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the involvement of the vehicle is not proved, is not sustainable. 15.Further the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition merely on the basis of delayed lodging of the FIR, which to my mind is not justified. I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal ought to have concluded the matter after recording its own satisfaction by perusing the evidence and the material available on the record. 15.Further the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition merely on the basis of delayed lodging of the FIR, which to my mind is not justified. I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal ought to have concluded the matter after recording its own satisfaction by perusing the evidence and the material available on the record. The claimant has stated that he remained hospitalized as an indoor patient for 10 days and thereafter when he came to know that no case has been lodged, he reported the matter to the police, thus, has satisfactorily explained the delay caused in lodging the report. Thus, from that point of view the findings of the learned Tribunal is not tenable, it requires to be set aside and further requires re-consideration. It is also pertinent to note that no issue has been framed with regard to compensation. 16.Thus, on the basis of the above overall discussion, I think it fit to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for deciding it afresh after hearing the parties. It is made clear that the learned Tribunal shall not be influenced by any observation made in the order and the Tribunal is free to conclude the matter as per law after framing any additional issue if it thinks necessary and after giving opportunity to lead the evidence to both the sides so desire. 17.In the result, the judgment of the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside, the appeal is partly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulabpura (Bhilwara) for afresh hearing on merits of the case. No order as to costs.