Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 358 (RAJ)

Laxmi Chand Gupta v. Thansingh

2012-02-08

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the vehicle wherein the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.99,005/- along with interest @ 9% per annum against the present appellant and the respondent No.-Bhuru Singh - driver of the tractor. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1-Thansingh filed a claim petition against the present appellant and the respondent No.2 alleging therein that on 14.2.1998, he was coming on a tractor No. RJ 05R-8280, which was driven rashly and negligent by respondent No.1 and due to accident, respondent No.1 suffered serious injuries. the tractor was driven by Bhuri Singh, who was under the employer of the appellant and the claimant was also under the employment of the present appellant. 3. In reply to the claim petition, the appellant denied all the averments and it has been specifically denied that the claimant was not in the employment of the present appellant. It was also stated that no accident occurred from his tractor. 4. The learned Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the claimant was in the employment of the present appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 99,0065/-. Hence this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant record, specially the impugned judgment and award. 6. The contention of the present appellant is that the FIR was filed with inordinate delay. The alleged accident occurred on 14.2.1998, wherein the case was registered by way of complaint, which was filed by the claimant on 26.9.1998. No evidence has been produced that the claimant was under the employment of the present appellant and even the disability certificate was issued by the CM&HO, Agra, whereas the accident took place in Rajasthan and the claimant was residing in Rajasthan and the certificate is also delayed by 2 years and issued on 19.1.2000. 7. The record of the case goes to show that the alleged date of incident has been stated as 14.2.1998, whereas the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay and no reason has been assigned for the delay. Even the claimant has examined himself medically on 24.2.1999, after a delay of one year and disability certificate is also of the year 2000 and issued from Agra, where admittedly the claimant was not residing. Hence, the evidence produced by the claimant seems to be not reliable. Even the claimant has examined himself medically on 24.2.1999, after a delay of one year and disability certificate is also of the year 2000 and issued from Agra, where admittedly the claimant was not residing. Hence, the evidence produced by the claimant seems to be not reliable. 8. Further, it has been stated that the claimant was in the employment of the present appellant but no evidence has been produced before the learned Tribunal to show that the claimant was in the employment of the present appellant. In the FIR, he has stated hat he was working with the present appellant for about 3 years but in his statement, he has stated that he was working with the present appellant for the last 8-10 years. He has stated that he is having salary slips and he has entered his income by way of salary in a diary but no such slips and diary were produced before the Tribunal. It has been admitted by the claimant himself that he had got medically examined himself after 5-6 months of the incident and he has not obtained any disability certificate from Jaipur or Bharatpur, where he was residing and no cogent reason has been assigned that why he had examined himself before the Medical Board at Agra. 9. Per contra, the present appellant has stated before the learned Tribunal on oath that the claimant never remained in his employment and further Bhuri Singh - driver of the tractor, has also stated that the claimant never worked with the present appellant. 10. Hence, the evidence produced before the learned Tribunal by the claimant that he was in the employment of the present appellant is totally unreliable and cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that 30% of the award amount has already been paid to the claimant. But, looking to the Principle of Equity, it would not be appropriate to direct the recovery of the said amount from the respondent No.1. 12. In the result, this appeal is disposed of with the direction that no further amount is payable to the claimant respondent No.1 and the amount already paid to him shall not be recovered.