Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1414 (RAJ)

Udai Chand v. Manoj Kumar

2018-07-02

SABINA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 7.3.2017 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by him was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant. The delay in lodging the FIR had been duly explained by the appellant. As per Exhibit-19 factum of accident had been duly recorded in the Rojnamcha on the day of accident. Witnesses examined by the appellant had duly established that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving the offending vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for respondents have opposed the appeal. 4. Appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 20.10.2013 at about 8.30/9.00 p.m. It was the case of the appellant that he was traveling on motor-cycle driven by Rati Ram. In the meantime, offending motor-cycle driven by respondent no.l came from opposite direction and struck against the motor-cycle of the appellant. As a result, appellant suffered serious injuries. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed issue no.l to the effect as to whether appellant had suffered injuries in an accident which had occurred on 20.10.2013 at about 8.30/9.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving the motor-cycle bearing registration no. HR 99 QC temp. 5617. 6. In order to prove issue no.1, appellant himself appeared in the witness box as AW-1 and examined Rati Ram as AW-2 and respondent no.1 Manoj Kumar as AW-3. 7. Appellant while appearing in the witness box as AW-1 deposed as per the contents of the claim petition. A perusal of the claim petition reveals that the registration number of the motorcycle on which the appellant was allegedly traveling has not been mentioned. However, while appearing in the witness box as AW-1, appellant deposed that he was traveling on a motor-cycle bearing registration no. RJ 02 SK 1398 driven by Rati Ram. 8. AW-2 Rati Ram corroborated the statement of the appellant. He further deposed that charge sheet was filed against him by the police and he had admitted the offence and the case was decided after imposing fine on him. 9. RJ 02 SK 1398 driven by Rati Ram. 8. AW-2 Rati Ram corroborated the statement of the appellant. He further deposed that charge sheet was filed against him by the police and he had admitted the offence and the case was decided after imposing fine on him. 9. As per AW-1 and AW-2, appellant was sitting on the pillion seat, whereas, Rati Ram was driving the motor-cycle bearing registration no. RJ 02 SK 1398. 10. Manoj Kumar (respondent no.1) while appearing in the witness box as AW-3 deposed that on 20.10.2013, he was driving the motor-cycle bearing registration no. HR 99 QC temp. 5617 on his correct side of the road. In the meantime, a motor-cycle came from the opposite direction and struck against his motor-cycle. Two persons were traveling on the motor-cycle which had come from opposite direction and one person traveling on the said motor-cycle had suffered injuries. His motor-cycle was taken in possession by the police. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the motor-cycle which had come from the opposite direction was being driven by Udai Chand in a rash and negligent manner and the accident had occurred due to the fault of Udai Chand. He (witness) was not fault at the time of the accident. 11. Thus, as per AW-1 & AW-2, motor-cycle was being driven by Rati Ram and Udai Chand (appellant) was the pillion rider, whereas, AW-3 Manoj Kumar has stated that Udai Chand was driving the motor-cycle. 12. Accident in the present case had occurred on 20.10.2013, whereas, FIR was got registered on 22.11.2013. 13. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Exhibit-19 to substantiate his argument that the fact that the accident had occurred on 20.10.2013 with the offending vehicle was duly established. Exhibit-19 is the report entered in the Rojnamcha register. A perusal of the same reveals that the constable had informed that during nakabandi they came to know that an accident had occurred and he had reached the spot. He found that Manoj Kumar was lying at the spot in an injured condition and his motor-cycle bearing registration no. HR 99 QC temp. 5617 was also lying there. 14. Thus, a perusal of Exhibit-19 reveals that the said document fails to advance the case of the appellant. He found that Manoj Kumar was lying at the spot in an injured condition and his motor-cycle bearing registration no. HR 99 QC temp. 5617 was also lying there. 14. Thus, a perusal of Exhibit-19 reveals that the said document fails to advance the case of the appellant. Rather from the said document, it is evident that the respondent no.1 was lying in an injured condition and the offending vehicle was lying with him. In case the story put forth by the appellant had been correct, then the motor-cycle bearing registration no. RJ 02 SK 1398 would have been also found lying at the spot. Moreover, Rati Ram who was allegedly driving the motor-cycle should also have been found present at the spot. Rather as per the police report, it was respondent no.1 Manoj Kumar who was lying at the spot in an injured condition and not the appellant. 15. Thus, there are serious unexplained contradictions in the evidence on record. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal rightly decided issue no.1 against the appellant. 16. No ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed.