Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 412 (RAJ)

Ganpat Singh v. Balak Ram

2012-02-10

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
GUPTA, J.—The misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 22.3.2003 passed by learned MACT, Tonk in MAC No. 2972/2001 whereby the claim petition filed by he claimants/appellants has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal as alleged in the claim petition are that the appellants' son Raju who was working as Khalasi on Truck No. RNG 2538 was going to Jaipur. When he reached near Village Niwai, a Truck No. PB11-C-4999 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 Balak Ram hit the Truck of the appellants' son and due to this accident, Raju died on the spot. After Investigation, police filed challan against the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants have not produced any eye-witness in support of his claim and concluded that the factum of accident has not been proved. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the relevant record especially the impugned judgment and award. 4. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the FIR of eh incident has been lodged and charge-sheet has also been filed against the respondent No.1. Hence, factum of accident was proved before the learned Tribunal. 5. In the claim petition, it has been stated that the deceased was traveling in Truck No. RNG 2538 and he was Conductor of the Truck whereas, in the statement of AW.1 Ganpat who was father of the deceased it has been stated that his son was conductor and he was conductor in Bus No. RNG 2538. AW.1 Ganpat Singh has not stated that his son was traveling in Truck No. RNG 2538. During he course of proceedings, an application for amendment in the claim petition was also moved but, no amendment has been done regarding Truck or Bus. Only amendment which has been made was regarding number of the Truck. In cross-examination, AW.1 Ganpat has also stated that his son as Khalasi in the vehicle in which he was going. He stated that his son was going in Bus. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Ganpat was illiterate person and he could not make different between the Truck and Bus. This submission is not acceptable as illiterate person can identify difference between Bus and the Truck. He stated that his son was going in Bus. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Ganpat was illiterate person and he could not make different between the Truck and Bus. This submission is not acceptable as illiterate person can identify difference between Bus and the Truck. The FIR which was lodged by the driver of the Jaipur Tanker Transport Company has not mentioned anything regarding death of Raju in the FIR and there is no mention of the fact that the deceased was going in Bus No. RNG 2538 and he met with an accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision in the case of Kusum Lata & Ors. vs. Satbir & Ors., 2011 DNJ (SC) 304 = 2011(1) CCR 393 (SC) in which eye-witness of the incident has been produced. But, here in the present case on eye-witness of the accident has been produced before the Tribunal. Even lodger of the FIR Kesar Singh has not been produced and no reason has been stated as to why the eye-witness has not been produced in support of the claim. The learned Tribunal has considered the evidence and has rightly decided issue No.1 as against the present appellants. 8. In deciding issue No.5, the learned Tribunal has also considered the fact that a valid driving license which was effective on the date of accident has not been produced. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that they had produced the license, Exhibit-6 and further they had submitted before the Tribunal that they want to produce the arrest memo of Balak Ram which prayer has been rejected by the Tribunal. For proving driving license, submission of arrest memo is totally irrelevant and the application has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. Exhibit-6, the driving license, which was placed on record goes to show that it was valid upto 31.3.1992 whereas admittedly, accident in the present matter has taken place on 12.4.1994 and the Tribunal has rightly decided the issue No.5 as against the appellants. Hence, looking to the above, there is no infirmity in the reasonings and conclusion which has been arrived at by the Tribunal and there is no need to interfere in the impugned award. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.