Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 630 (RAJ)

Usha Devi v. Kumar Construction

2012-03-13

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 26th October, 2009, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (here-in-after to be referred as the 'Tribunal'), dismissed the claim petition of the appellants-claimants. 2. Background facts of the case, in short, are that on 11th May, 2004, the deceased Ravindra Kumar was carrying Gas Cylinder on his bicycle and going from Vidhyadhar Nagar to Papad Ke Hanuman ji Mandir. It is alleged that one Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ-02-G-9155 suddenly emerged and hit the deceased Ravindra Kumar, who sustained grievous injuries on his person and finally succumbed to injuries on 13th May, 2004. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the Tribunal has arbitrarily dismissed the claim petition merely on the ground that the First Information Report of the accident was lodged after undue delay. Learned counsel argued that merely the ground of lodging FIR after undue delay, cannot be the basis to reject the claim petition. He cited one judgment of Apex Court delivered in the case Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others in Civil Appeal No. 1926/2011 (Arising out of SLP) No. 11974 of 2008 = 2011(1) CCR 353 (SC)). 5. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully scanned the impugned judgment, it is revealed that the accident is alleged to have taken place on 11.5.2004 and Ravindra Kumar is said to have expired on 13.5.2004, during his treatment in Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur. The Tribunal is found to have dismissed the claim petition on the following grounds:- i) The deceased Ravindra Kumar was admitted in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, where he was to be medically examined, but the father of the deceased disclosed to Doctor that Ravindra Kumar had fallen from above and he did not want any police action in this matter. This was the statement given by the father of the deceased soon after the accident. Had Ravindra Kumar met with an accident, the father of the deceased would have undeniably and undisputably disclosed the fact of accident to the concerned Doctor, who intended to examine the injured. ii) The parents of the deceased did not lodge any report with the Police because it was not an accident case. Had Ravindra Kumar met with an accident, the father of the deceased would have undeniably and undisputably disclosed the fact of accident to the concerned Doctor, who intended to examine the injured. ii) The parents of the deceased did not lodge any report with the Police because it was not an accident case. iii) The accident in the instant case is alleged to have taken place on 11th May, 2004 and the father of the deceased filed the private complaint in the court on 31st July, 2004, which was sent by the court for investigation to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Police of Vidhyadhar Nagar Police Station lodged the FIR on 6th August, 2004. This inordinate delay of more than two months in lodging the FIR cast doubt about the veracity of this alleged accident. iv) The contradictions emerging in galore during the statements of witnesses about the accident also made the said accident doubtful. v) The vehicle allegedly entailed in the accident was with the Government Department on contract and at the alleged time of accident, the said vehicle was elsewhere. So the vehicle was also not found to be entailed in the accident. 6. It is true that Ravindra Kumar expired on 13th May, 2004, but it is not proved from the evidence on record that he died in an accident on 11th May, 2004. It is also not proved that the Jeep No. RJ-02-G-9155 was also entailed in this accident. The contradictions emerging on record in galore and the undue delay of two months in loding the FIR and above all, the first hand information revealed by the father of the deceased soon after the alleged accident, lead this Court to infer that Ravindra Kumar did not die in the said accident and the vehicle was also not entailed therein. The Tribunal is found to have discussed the evidence adlongum and arrived at a correct finding that the death of Ravindra Kumar was not result of the alleged accident. The impugned judgment is found to be just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. I concur with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal and thus, the impugned judgment warrants no intervention. The judgment cited by the learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Mathur does not render any help to the appellants. 7. The impugned judgment is found to be just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. I concur with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal and thus, the impugned judgment warrants no intervention. The judgment cited by the learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Mathur does not render any help to the appellants. 7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed in limine.