Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1352 (RAJ)

Santara Devi v. Sedu Ram

2009-05-15

GUMAN SINGH

body2009
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Both the parties agreed for final disposal of this appeal at admission stage. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellant-dependents of deceased Harlal Singh against the judgment and award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar dated 4.4.05 whereby claim petition of the appellant-claimants was dismissed on the basis of finding on issue no.1 pertaining to involvement and negligence of offending vehicle truck No.RJ-23G-2329. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on the point of involvement and negligence of the offending vehicle in right perspective. It is submitted that the accident took place on 21.12.2004 and after ten days, deceased Harlal died due to injuries caused in the accident in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Thereafter, FIR was lodged on 12.1.2005 and delay caused in lodging the FIR has been explained as Sitaram, brother of deceased was busy with the treatment and thereafter in last rites of his deceased brother. It is further submitted that notice under Sec.133 of the M.V. Act was given and the fact of accident with the offending vehicle was admitted. It is further submitted that after due investigation, police challaned the respondent no.1 Sedu Ram, driver of offending vehicle and who is still facing trial, therefore, the stand taken by the respondent-driver that his vehicle was stationary and accident took place only on account of skidding of the motor cycle, is not trustworthy. It is also submitted that this case may be remanded as no finding was given on the issue pertaining to quantum of compensation in the matter so that the matter can be decided in entirety in appeal. 4. 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 the learned Tribunal has given cogent finding on issue no.1 while deciding the issue against the appellant. It is further submitted that a report in Rojnamcha of the police was made and which does not mention about the involvement of the truck. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has given cogent finding on issue no.1 while deciding the issue against the appellant. It is further submitted that a report in Rojnamcha of the police was made and which does not mention about the involvement of the truck. He has relied upon the statements of NAW-1 to NAW-3 and also submitted that there was delay of 22 days in lodging the FIR. 5. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the the learned Tribunal has gone into the question of delay in the matter and has come to the conclusion that the delay was fatal in the matter. The learned Tribunal has not given finding regarding the quantum of compensation to be awarded in case the offending vehicle is found involved and negligent in the accident. The evidence has been adduced on the point that after lodging the FIR, regular investigation commenced and after due investigation, respondent-accused was challaned and that notice under Sec.133 of the M.V. Act was given and in the said notice, involvement of vehicle was admitted. 6. In view of rival submissions and the fact that all the issues in the claim petition have not been decided by the Tribunal, the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh decision on all the issues after affording opportunity of hearing on the submissions as well as to lead evidence to both the parties. 7. Accordingly, impugned judgment and award dated 1.9.07 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh decision on all the issues after hearing the parties and affording opportunity to lead evidence. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 16.7.09. Record be sent forthwith. The appeal stands disposed of.