Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1942 (RAJ)

Brij Mohan v. Kali Charan

2014-12-01

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant appellant has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: “On 9.5.2002, Sultan was going to Chandwaji with Tractor No. RJ-23/R-2882. At about 8.00 AM when he reached ahead Kanwarpura, the driver of offending Vehicle HR-38G-2504 drove the vehicle rashly, negligently and at an excessive speed and hit the tractor trolley, as a result of which the tractor was damaged and suffered heavy losses. The persons sitting in the tractor-trolley also sustained injuries. Due to the said accident, an FIR was lodged.” 3. Thereafter a claim petition was filed by claimant appellant Brij Mohan regarding loss suffered by him due to the damage caused to his vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. RJ-23/R-2882 in the road accident, which took place on 9.5.2002 and other claim petitions were also filed. Notices were issued, written statement of defence was filed, issues were framed and after hearing the counsel for both the sides, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant appellant. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant Brij Mohan. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that while deciding the issue no. 1 and 2, the learned Tribunal admitted the factum of the accident of the tractor, but arbitrarily dismissed the claim petition. He has further contended that the appellant had bought the tractor, but it was not transferred in his name and after the accident, it had been transferred in his name. He produced the registration Certificate Ex.-10, in which the name of the appellant had been shown as registered owner of the tractor. Therefore, it could not be said that the appellant was not the owner of the tractor. He has further contended that when the Tribunal itself held that the tractor damaged in the accident, then there was no occasion before the Tribunal to refuse to award any compensation for the damages of the tractor. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. defended the impugned judgment and stated the same to be just and proper. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. defended the impugned judgment and stated the same to be just and proper. He has further contended that the accident took place on 9.5.2002 and on the date of accident, there was no registration of the tractor No. RJ-23-R-2882 in the name of Brij Mohan. In addition to above, no evidence was adduced by the Brij Mohan with regard to purchase of the aforesaid tractor by himself. The registration of the aforesaid tractor was got done by Brij Mohan in his name after more than a one month. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the relevant part of the judgment of the Tribunal, which is reproduced as under: ^^Loh—r rkSj ij fnukad 9-5-2002 dh bl ?kVuk ds le; izkFkhZ c`teksgu ds uke {kfrxzLr VªsDVj ua- vkj-ts-23 vkj- 2882 dk dksbZ iathdj.k izek.ki= ugha FkkA blds vfrfjä izkFkhZ us vius }kjk [kjhn ds lEcU/k esa Hkh fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA bl ?kVuk ds ,d ekg ls Hkh vf/kd ckn fnukad 18-6-02 dks gh bl izkFkhZ c`teksgu ds uke bl VªsDVj dk jftLVªs'ku izek.ki= izn'kZ 10 izkFkhZ ds uke VªkalQj gksdj iath—r gqvk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa oä nq?kZVuk o blds rRdky iwoZ izkFkhZ c`teksgu dks {kfrxzLr VªsDVj dk Lokeh gksuk izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ?kVuk ds le; VªsDVj fdlh jkew lSuh ds uke iath—r FkkA** 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that on the date of accident, the Registration Certificate of the Tractor in question was not in the name of the claimant appellant Brij Mohan and was registered in the name of Ramu Saini, the claimant appellant was rightly found not to be entitled for any award of compensation. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are just and proper. I do not think it just and proper to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and hence, the appeal filed by the claimant appellant being without any substance is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.