Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1829 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal v. Naajar Singh

2017-08-16

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 02.02.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the application for compensation filed by the appellant. 2. Application for compensation was filed by the appellant, inter alia, with the averments that he was working as Khalasi on Truck No. RJ07-G-1011, which was being driven by its driver Laxman Ram carefully on its side, when the offending Truck No. PB13-F-2115 being driven rashly and negligently by Jeet Singh collided with the said Truck, resulting in injuries to both - claimant Bhanwar Lal and driver Laxman Ram. Based on the said averments compensation was sought. 3. The application as resisted by the owner and the Insurance Company. 4. The Insurance Company contended that the claimant himself was driving the Truck and that the accident occurred on account of negligent driving by him and that he was not in possession of a driving licence. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues. Evidence was led by the claimant, wherein, he himself was examined as PW-1 and Laxman Ram was examined as PW-2. On behalf of respondents none was examined. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal based on the material, which came on record, pertaining to the criminal trial regarding the said accident, which was conducted against the appellant, as challan was filed against him, wherein, he was convicted, came to the conclusion that the appellant himself was driving the Truck and that the accident occurred on account of his own negligence and, consequently, rejected the application. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant, inasmuch as, the outcome of the criminal case has no affect on the claim, which was pending before the Tribunal. Further submissions were made that the appellant was himself examined and Laxman Ram, who was driver of the vehicle, was also examined and in the cross examination nothing adverse could be extracted and, therefore, the Tribunal by merely relying on the result of the criminal trial could not have rejected the claim filed by the appellant. It was submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and, therefore, the same be reversed and matter be remanded back for computation of quantum of compensation. 7. It was submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and, therefore, the same be reversed and matter be remanded back for computation of quantum of compensation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supported the award impugned. It was submitted that from the documentary evidence available on record i.e. Exhibits-A/1 to A/3, which pertained to the criminal trial in connection with the accident, it was apparent that the entire case sought to be made out by the appellant was false. The appellant himself was driving the vehicle and was found negligent in the criminal trial and, therefore, the award impugned does not call for any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. At the outset, the case of a claimant, who himself was accused before a criminal court for rash and negligent driving and has been convicted by the said Court, has to be distinguished from the case of a claimant, who is not before the criminal court, wherein, either the driver has been convicted and/or acquitted and it is only in those cases where the claimant is not before the criminal court and the matters are decided, the acquittal has been held as not affecting the outcome of the proceedings before Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal is required to hear and decide the matter on its own merits based on the evidence, which has come on record. 10. In the present case, after the accident took place, FIR was lodged against the appellant Bhanwar Lal, the police filed challan against him for rash and negligent driving as well as for driving the vehicle without requisite licence. After trial, the appellant was held guilty and a penalty of Rs. 600/- was imposed on him for various offences. The appellant admittedly did not challenge the said conviction though the conviction took place during the pendency of the present claim proceedings and the appellant was well aware of the fact that the same may affect the present proceedings. After trial, the appellant was held guilty and a penalty of Rs. 600/- was imposed on him for various offences. The appellant admittedly did not challenge the said conviction though the conviction took place during the pendency of the present claim proceedings and the appellant was well aware of the fact that the same may affect the present proceedings. The very fact that the appellant suffered the conviction in the criminal case, wherein, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, the claim now sought to be made in the present case that the appellant was not driving the vehicle and that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the other Truck cannot be countenanced. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard cannot be said to be perverse so as to require any interference in the present appeal. 11. There is no substance in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.