Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 210 (RAJ)

Madan Lal @ Madan Singh v. Mangal Rama Choudhary

2011-01-28

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the order dated 4.10.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ Fast Track No.3) Jaipur District Jaipur whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- due to injuries sustained by him in an road accident which took place on 11.4.2007 at 1.00 a.m. It was stated in the claim petition that on 11.4.2007 when the claimant was going as a pedestrian then the driver of the Car No. RJC 5700 drives his car in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and hit him due to which he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant thereafter lodged FIR bearing No. 245/2007. 3. This Court directed Mr. Tripurari Sharma to accept notice on behalf of the respondent United Insurance Company as the other respondents are formal parties. 4. Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the claimant appellant contended that the claimant filed the claim petition and thereafter notice was issued and written statement was filed by the insurance company. The Insurance Company admitted that the FIR was lodged on the same day which is numbered as FIR No. 245/2007. The learned counsel contended that the occurrence/accident has taken place but due to some technical and other errors the complainant could not bring true facts before the Tribunal. The complainant has received the grievous injuries and he was hospitalized in Dhanwantri Hospital at Jaipur and whee from he was discharged vide Ex.14. 5. Mr. Tripurari Sharma, seriously opposed the submissions advanced by he learned counsel for the complainant and stated that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Mr. Sharma also contended that no interference is requied in the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. In the instant matter the FIR was lodged on the same day and the complainant was hospitalized in Dhanwantri Hospital wherefrom he was discharged vide Ex.13. 6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. In the instant matter the FIR was lodged on the same day and the complainant was hospitalized in Dhanwantri Hospital wherefrom he was discharged vide Ex.13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments raised by both the parties, I set aside the order dated 4.10.2010 and direct the MACT Court to decide the matter as a fresh after hearing both the parties and both the parties are directed to appear before the MACT on 24.3.2011 and after that the Tribunal may decide the matter within a period of three months.