Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 27 (RAJ)

Kamli Devi v. Hari Ram

2011-01-05

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment dated 19.10.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, the appellants have approached this Court. 2. Shortly, the facts of the case are that on 4.4.2007, when Sheo Nath, was going on motorcycle, along with Nahnu Ram, a Jeep, bearing registration No. RJ 29 UA 0086, being driven by respondent No.1, in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. Consequently, while Nanhu Ram sustained injuries, Sheo Nath died. Since the claimants-respondents lost their sole bread earner, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The respondents filed their reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made by the claimants. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. In support of their case the claimants-appellants adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the other hand, the respondent No.3, the Insurance Company, did not adduce any evidence, but did exhibit two documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 19.10.2010, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that the reasons given by the learned Tribunal are misplaced. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition ostensibly on the ground that the number of the offending vehicle, as given out in the claim petition, do not match with the number of the vehicle given out in the First Information Report which was registered two days after the alleged accident. Secondly, the make of the vehicle has been described differently by the eye-witnesses and their description does not tally with the recovery memo of the offending vehicle. According to the learned counsel, the accident had taken place on 4.4.2007, yet the testimonies of the eye-witnesses were not recorded till three years latter. Therefore, the description of the vehicle is at variations due to flux of time and due to the lapse of memory. Thirdly, in case the appellants wanted to falsely implicate the offending vehicle, they would not have lodged the FIR just two days after the alleged accident. Therefore, the learned counsel has pleaded that the judgment should be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment. 5. Thirdly, in case the appellants wanted to falsely implicate the offending vehicle, they would not have lodged the FIR just two days after the alleged accident. Therefore, the learned counsel has pleaded that the judgment should be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment. 5. The learned Tribunal has minutely examined the evidence produced not only before it, but also the evidence which was recorded by the Police during the course of criminal investigation. It has also examined the testimony of the witnesses in the criminal case. According to the learned Tribunal, in the FIR, the number of the offending vehicle was shown as RJ 29 UA 0186. However, in the claim petition, the number of the vehicle has been shown as RJ 29 UA 0086. The learned Tribunal has noted that thus, there is a difference in the number plate of the offending vehicle. 6. Moreover, it has noted the fact that Ranglal, who had lodged the FIR, has not been produced as a witness. Therefore, a material witness was not produced although he was readily available to the claimants. Furthermore, the claimants did not even bother to produce the FIR. The said FIR was, in fact, produced by the Insurance Company. Lastly, and most importantly, the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that according to the Ranglal, the offending vehicle was a Bolero Car. However, the vehicle which has been involved by the claimants in the claim petition happens to be a Jeep. Moreover, the color of the vehicles are quite different. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has given cogent and logical reasons for disbelieving the story of the claimants. 7. The fact that the number of the vehicle has been changed, the fact that the make of the vehicle has been changed, the fact that even the color of the vehicle has been changed, cannot be attributed to mere lapse of memory. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that while the witnesses may lie, the documents do not. The FIR and the recovery memo clearly reveal that two different vehicles are being involved falsely by the claimants. 8. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******