Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2469 (RAJ)

Vijendra Singh v. Suraj Mal

2011-11-16

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Driver & Owner aggrieved by award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur dated 15.7.2010 by which, award in the sum of Rs.1,08,709/- has been passed in favour of the claimant-respondent. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in law while wrongly deciding Issue No.2 in favour of the claimant and awarded the aforesaid sum in his favour, for which he was not entitled to as claimant himself was responsible for the accident, in that, he hit the tractor of the owner & driver, which tractor was in a standing condition. Learned Tribunal in this connection wrongly disbelieved the statement of driver of the Tractor that it was complainant, who was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and on whose count, the accident took place. Be that as it may, a compromise was arrived at between them on a non-judicial stamp of Rs.10/- and according to the agreement, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was decided to be paid to the claimant; against which, initial an amount Rs.15,000/- was paid to the claimant on 3.5.2006 at the time of execution of the agreement and rest amount of Rs.35,000/- was decided to be given to him by 15.6.2006. But, when the owner & driver went to the house of the claimant for payment of rest amount of Rs.35,000/-, he refused to accept the same contrary to the agreement arrived at between them. It was argued that once the agreement was arrived at between the driver & owner and the complainant, the learned Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim petition itself. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and award of the Tribunal be set-aside. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record, I find that mere fact that once agreement has been arrived at between the parties and hence claim is not tenable, cannot be accepted. An agreement executed between the parties cannot lower down the gravity of the offence of the offending vehicle. It was proved beyond all reasonable doubts in the light of the evidence that it was driver & owner of the offending vehicle at whose instance the accident took place. The act of the appellant in arriving at a compromise itself indicates that they were at fault. It was proved beyond all reasonable doubts in the light of the evidence that it was driver & owner of the offending vehicle at whose instance the accident took place. The act of the appellant in arriving at a compromise itself indicates that they were at fault. Learned Tribunal, in my considered view, has rightly decided all the four issues in favour of the claimant and against the driver & owner of the offending vehicle. Burden of proving Issues No.1 & 2 was upon the claimant, which he successfully proved, whereas claimant & driver failed to rebut the same. Claimant sustained 10% permanent disability as a result of sustaining grievous head injury, which was proved by the medical evidence i.e. Exh.157. Appellant-driver & owner failed to prove the negligence on the part of the claimant, whereas as per the documentary evidence, the negligence has been found proved on their part. 4. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award. The appeal has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.