Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 389 (RAJ)

Ladu v. Karam Chand

2012-02-09

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 20.4.2002 in MAC No. 8/2001, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant-appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the loss suffered by him due to injuries sustained in the accident took place on 1.10.1999 when the claimant was coming to Kekri in a jeep No. RJ-01P-3110. When the said jeep reached at Kekri, the driver of the jeep suddenly applied the breaks, as a result of which, the said jeep turned in the opposite direction and the appellant fell down from jeep and the rear wheel of the jeep passed on from the knee of the leg resulting in crush injury in the left leg of the appellant. 3. The learned Tribunal has decided the issue No.1 against the claimant-appellant and dismissed the claim petition holding that there is a contradiction in the place of accident and manner of accident has not been stated. 4. Record of the case award goes to show that FIR and charge-sheet have been placed before the Tribunal which established the factum of accident. The FIR Ex.1, which was registered on the statement of Karamchand, goes to show that the driver of the impugned vehicle applied breaks suddenly, which resulted in the accident and the present claimant fell out of the jeep and rear tyre of the jeep ran over the left leg of the claimant. This fact was further corroborated by he fact that the charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent No.2 - driver of the impugned vehicle. 5. Learned Tribunal has considered the fact that there is a contradiction in narration of manner of the accident but taking note of the facts stated in the FIR and in the statements of witnesses, there seems no material contradictions. In the FIR, it has been stated that the driver of the vehicle has applied breaks suddenly, which resulted into accident. It was further corroborated by the statement of AW-1 Ladu. Site plan prepared during the course of investigation also supported the factum of accident. In the FIR, it has been stated that the driver of the vehicle has applied breaks suddenly, which resulted into accident. It was further corroborated by the statement of AW-1 Ladu. Site plan prepared during the course of investigation also supported the factum of accident. The learned Tribunal has considered the fact that in the statement of claimant, it was stated that the breaks were applied but in the FIR, which was registered on the statement of Karamchand, it was stated that one dog came suddenly and due to it, breaks were applied. 6. Be that as it may, it cannot be termed as contradiction. Rather, Karam Chand has also stated the same manner of accident further mentioning that why breaks were applied. The FIR, charge-sheet and statement of complainant goes to show that the breaks have been applied suddenly and due to this rash act, accident took place and hence, there is no contradiction on the fact that accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the jeep. 7. Learned Tribunal has also considered the fact that there is a contradiction regarding place of accident. In the FIR, it was stated that the accident took place when the jeep was coming from Sarwad and place of accident has been stated to be Ajmer road, in front of Irrigation Office in the FIR. In the statement of the present appellant, it has been stated that the accident took place at Azgara Tank but there is no suggestion that Azgara Tank is not near the Irrigation Office. hence, no contradiction has been proved regarding place of occurrence. 8. In para No. 26 of the claim petition, details of accident have been alleged and in reply to the claim petition, non-applicant has not denied this fact. Rather, in the reply, it has been stated that the accident occurred due to unavoidable reasons. hence, the accident was well proved before the learned Tribunal. 9. From the above evidence, it can be safely inferred that the factum of accident was proved before the learned Tribunal and accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the impugned jeep by the respondent No.2. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. ( 2009 ACJ 1725 = 2009(1) CCR 627 (SC)), wherein in para No. 15, the Supreme Court has held as under : "In a situation of this nature, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view in the matter. It was necessary to be borne in the mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner any not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set-forth by both the parties." 11. In the light of the above legal position, it is considered that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal regarding issue No.1 is not sustainable and factum of accident and negligence of respondent was proved before the Tribunal. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the impugned judgment and award 20.4.2002 passed by the learned MACT, Kekri is quashed and set aside. The issue No.1 is decided in favour of the claimant-appellant and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for passing appropriate award. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 16.3.2012. The record of the case be sent back to the learned Tribunal.