Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 914 (RAJ)

Geeta Devi v. Roshan Lal

2015-04-23

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the judgment passed by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal with regard to death of Arun Kumar in a road accident which is said to have taken place on 8th September, 2010. Thereafter notices were issued; reply was filed; certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment dated 4th December, 2014 dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been filed by the claimants. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that Tribunal has not properly appreciated that oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. He has further contended that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse and based on a wrong notion over looking the settled proposition of law. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and stated the same to be just and proper. He has further contended that the Tribunal on the basis of material available on record, framed the issues and rightly decided the them. Hence, no interference is required by this Court. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgment. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and rightly passed by the impugned judgment. Hence, no interference is required by this Court. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgment. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and rightly passed by the impugned judgment. I am in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under: "bl izdkj bu rudh;kr ds laca/k esa tks lk{; vkbZ gS] mlls ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 viuh iYlj eksVjlkbZfdy dks mis{kkiw.kZ o ykijokgh ls pykdj e`rd v:.kdqekj dh eksVjlkbZfdy esa VDdj ekjh x;h] ftlds QyLo:i mDr nq?kZVuk ds ckcr e`rd ds cguksbZ jktkjke }kjk vKkr okgu ds f[kykQ fjiksZV izn'kZ&3 ntZ djk;h x;h Fkh] ftlesa iqfyl us ckn rQ~rh'k vafre izfrosnu vne irk pkyd eqyfte ,oa okgu esa izLrqr dh x;hA p'enhn xokg ,0Mh0&3 QwypUn izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZdrkZ ds gh xkao dk fuoklh gSA mlus izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZdrkZ o e`rd ds ifjtuksa dks nq?kZVuk dkfjr djus okyh eksVjlkbZfdy dk uEcj o uke crk fn;k Fkk] tks nq?kZVuk ds 12 fnuksa ds vanj gh crk fn;k FkkA blds ckotwn Hkh iqfyl dks u rks e`rd ds ifjtuksa us vkSj u gh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZdrkZ us nq?kZVuk dkfjr djus okyh eksVjlkbZfdy ds uEcjksa dh tkudkjh nh] ftlds dkj.k iqfyl us vafre izfrosnu izLrqr fd;kA rRi'pkr 4 ekg ckn bl ekeys esa xokg ,0MCY;w0&3 QwypUn o vU; p'enhn xokg /keZiky ds c;kuksa ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZ la0&1 dks nq?kZVuk dk nks"kh ekurs gq, mlds fo:) U;k;ky; esa vkjksi&i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA blls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd bl ekeys esa ek= izfrdj izkIr djus ds fy, vizkFkhZ la0&1 ds okgu dks lafyIr fd;k x;k gSA jktkjke ftlus bl ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ&3 ntZ djk;h x;h] og bl izfrdj ;kfpdk esa izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls iSjoh dj jgk gS] ;g xokg ,0M0&3 QwypUn dh lk{; ls iw.kZr;k lkfcr gSA ftjg esa mlus Lohdkj fd;k gS eq>s bl izfrdj ;kfpdk esa lk{; nsus gsrq jktkjke us gh Hkstk gS vkSj jktkjke dks ;fn nq?kZVuk ds rqjUr i'pkr~ xokg ,0M0&3 QwypUn nq?kZVuk dkfjr djus okyh eksVjlkbZfdy dk uEcj crkrk rks og vko';d :i ls iqfyl dks bl ckcr~ vo'; crkrkA blls ;g iw.kZ:is.k lkfcr gksrk gS fd xokg ,0M0&3 QwypUn us mDr nq?kZVuk ugha ns[kh Fkh rFkk mlus nq?kZVuk esa vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 dh eksVjlkbZfdy dks lafyIr djus ds fy, lk{; nh gSA vr% mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ls ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd fnukad 8 flrEcj] 2010 dks vizkFkhZ la0&1 us eksVjlkbZfdy ua0 ,p0vkj0&36 ,u0&3358 dks mis{kkiw.kZ o ykijokgh ls pykdj e`rd dh eksVjlkbZfdy esa VDdj ekjh] ftlds QyLo:i ;g nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZA bl izdkj mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij rudh la[;k&1 o 3 dk fu/kkZj.k vizkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa fo:) izkFkhZx.k fd;k tkrk gSA rudh la[;k&2 o 4% ;s rudh vuqrks"k ls lacaf/kr gSA rudh la[;k&1 o 3 dks izkFkhZx.k vius i{k esa lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs gSaA vr% izkFkhZx.k nq?kZVuk esa e`rd v:.kdqekj dh e`R;q ds ckcr vizkFkhZx.k ls dksbZ izfrdj jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSaA QyLo:i izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g izfrdj ;kfpdk fo:) vizkFkhZx.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; ikbZ tkrh gSA^^ 8. For these reasons, I do not think it just and proper to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and thus, the appeal filed by the claimants being without any substance, is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.