Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 982 (RAJ)

Sita v. Bhag Chand

2011-05-10

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal, Kekri in claim petition No. 42/2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants appellants has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.1.95 respondent No.1, Bhag Chand was driving the motor cycle No. RJ-01-15M-3899 and Mahaveer (deceased) was a pillion rider and were going to their agriculture field from village Sarwar. At about 11.50 one k.m. ahead of Sarwar at the turn of Pulia (bridge) the motor cycle lost control and it hit a stone due to which they fell down along with the motor cycle and got injured. They were referred to the hospital at Ajmer where Mahaveer died due to the injuries received by him. An F.I.R. to this effect was lodged with the Police Station Sarwar under Section 279 and 304-A I.P.C. 3. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Reply was filed. Issues were framed and evidences were submitted by the parties. After hearing the parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Tribunal had passed the aforesaid award. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated 22.11.2007, this civil misc. appeal is preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. J.P. Gupta has contended that the award is contrary to law and the learned Tribunal has not assessed the evidence correctly submitted by the appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Mrs. Manju Jain appearing on behalf of the claimant has contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award dated 22.11.2007. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the award dated 22.11.2007. 7. A.D.2 Mohd. Ishaq has stated that he was present at the time of accident and told that he brought both the injured at the hospital and on the same day he narrated this story to one Madan Lal who is the brother of deceased Mahaveer. He has told Madan Lal that Bhag Chand was driving the motor cycle and Mahaveer was pillion rider. But in the written report submitted with the Police, Madan Lal has stated that Mahaveer was driving the motor cycle and Bhag Chand was a pillion rider. This creates suspicion that when the eye witness Mohd. He has told Madan Lal that Bhag Chand was driving the motor cycle and Mahaveer was pillion rider. But in the written report submitted with the Police, Madan Lal has stated that Mahaveer was driving the motor cycle and Bhag Chand was a pillion rider. This creates suspicion that when the eye witness Mohd. Ishaq has told Madan Lal about the accident and that Bhag Chand was driving the motor cycle and Mahaveer was pillion rider why he narrated the Police that Mahaveer was driving the motor cycle and Bhag Chand was pillion rider. 8. In view of the above, I find no ground to accept this civil misc. appeal which is hereby dismissed. As such, the award dated 22.11.2007 is confirmed.