Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1540 (RAJ)

Kalyan v. Buddha Ram others

2013-09-04

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants are aggrieved by the award dated 20.9.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.3.2009, Buddha Ram was driving a motorcycle belonging to Ram Lal and was carrying his sister-in-law Ms. Matthu Devi. At about 2:30pm, when they near the temple in village Sarhad Jhhanda Nada Degana, allegedly due to the burst of tyre, he lost control over the motorcycle. Consequently, Mathu Devi fell, sustained injuries and died. Therefore, the claimants, who are her husband and her two minor children, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record, passed the award as mentioned hereinabove. 3. Mr. J.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for petitioner, has contended that despite there being ample evidence in the form of testimonies of Kalyan (AW.1) and Buddha Ram (NAW.1) to the fact that the motorcycle bearing registration no.RJ01 SH 4842, was involved in an accident, due to which Mrs. Matthu Devi expired, the learned Tribunal has disbelieved their testimonies. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed a grave illegality. 4. Heard the learned counsel for appellants and perused the impugned award. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has given ample reasons for dismissing the claim petition : firstly, the learned Tribunal has noticed that in the claim petition in para 26(c) the claimants were required to reveal whether they are related to the owner/driver of the offending vehicle or not? Therein the claimants have stated that they are "not related" to the driver of the offending vehicle. However, the fact remains that both the claimant appellant no.1 Kalyan and Buddha Ram, the driver of the offending vehicle, are related to each other as they are the brother-in-laws of each other. Thus according to the learned Tribunal, the claimants have not even approached the Tribunal with clean hands. 6. Secondly, that there is a glaring contradiction between the testimonies of Kalyan (AW.1) and of Buddha Ram (NAW.1). While Kalyan claims that the accident had occurred due to the bursting of the front tyre of the motorcycle, Buddha Ram claims that the accident had occurred because there was a pothole on the road, and the motorcycle, had hit the pothole. Secondly, that there is a glaring contradiction between the testimonies of Kalyan (AW.1) and of Buddha Ram (NAW.1). While Kalyan claims that the accident had occurred due to the bursting of the front tyre of the motorcycle, Buddha Ram claims that the accident had occurred because there was a pothole on the road, and the motorcycle, had hit the pothole. Thus, the very cause of accident is shrouded in mystery. 7. Thirdly, despite the fact that Buddha Ram had reported the matter to the police, in spite of the fact that the police had carried out proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C., neither in his report, nor in the proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C., does Buddha Ram reveal the registration number of the motorcycle. In case the motorcycle was actually involved in the alleged accident, naturally its registration number would have been revealed by Buddha Ram, in the first instance. 8. Fourthly, the learned Tribunal has recorded the fact that according to Mr. Arun Agrawal (AW.2) the person who had carried out the investigation on behalf of the Insurance Company, it was discovered that Buddha Ram and the owner of the offending vehicle, Ram Lal, stay in two different villages, separated by 60 km. Moreover, it was also discovered that Buddha Ram owns two motorcycles. Thus, the story that Buddha Ram actually travelled 60 km. to borrow the motorcycle belonging to Ram Lal, and carried his sister-in-law on the said motorcycle, sounds like cooked up story. Once he himself had two motorcycles available at home, there is no justification or reason for him to borrow Ram Lal's motorcycle. Arun Agrawal (AW.2) has also revealed in his testimony that both the motorcycles owned by Buddha Ram were uninsured, whereas the motorcycle owned by Ram Lal, was an insured one. Thus, the learned Tribunal has validly concluded that it is a case of collusion between the claimants and Buddha Ram. Moreover, they have involved a motorcycle, which was insured with the Insurance Company, and have submitted a false claim petition. 9. Since the learned Tribunal has given both legal and cogent reasons for dismissing the claim petition, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. This appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******