Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 530 (RAJ)

Keshbatti Bai v. Kedar Prasad

2021-03-02

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

body2021
ORDER 1. Instant miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1988') has been preferred on behalf of the appellants/claimants praying therein that the impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (DistrictJudge, Dausa) (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal'), in Motor Accident Claims Case No.195/2013, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants had been rejected, be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the matter be remanded back for granting an opportunity for leading evidence to the claimants-appellants and a direction may also be given to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh. 2. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the appellants, who were the claimants in the aforementioned claim case, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Jeetu @ Ajeet Singh, husband of appellant No.1, son of appellant Nos.2 & 3 and brother of appellant No.4, in a motor accident, which took place on 25.12.2012, while he was to go to School besides a kachha road on his side at Kailai Bus Stand and was waiting for his friend. Suddenly, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-01-U-0003 being driven rashly and negligently came and hit him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and later-on died. Alleging that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming therein a total compensation of Rs.37,15,000/- under the various heads. 3. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.I/driver and respondent No.2/owner did not appear despite service, as such the matter proceeded ex-parte against them. Respondent No.3/insurance company filed a written-statement and denied most of the averments of the claim petition and contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of fifteen-days and driver was not having a valid license. The claim petition had been filed under a conspiracy with owner & driver of the vehicle and the Police proceeded just to extort money. There is a breach of policy condition and, therefore, the insurance-company is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent No.3/Insurance company, thus, prayed for rejection of the claim petition. 4. On completion of pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. There is a breach of policy condition and, therefore, the insurance-company is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent No.3/Insurance company, thus, prayed for rejection of the claim petition. 4. On completion of pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellants/claimants on account of leading no evidence. 5. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and facts. The learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that no evidence was lead. The appellants/claimants are innocent and rustic villagers and were not aware with the legal procedure properly. Counsel has further submitted that the Counsel before the Tribunal had assured that he would take care of the matter but he did not inform anything to them, thus, the claim petition was dismissed on account of leading no evidence. The claimants have a case on merits. Lastly, Counsel for the appellants has prayed that the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back for granting an opportunity to lead evidence and a direction may also be given to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ Insurance-company, has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal requires no interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In Para 6 of the impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2017, the learned Tribunal had observed that "...............so many opportunities were afforded to the appellants to produce evidence i.e. on 12.04.2017, 05.05.2017, 09.06.2017, 30.06.2017, 04.08.2017 and again on 15.09.2017 respectively, however, inspite of sufficient opportunities being given and for not producing any evidence by the appellants, on 15.09.2017, the evidence of the appellants was closed and the case was fixed on 06.10.2017 for evidence of the respondent-company. On that date, respondent-company has not chosen to produce any evidence. On that date, respondent-company has not chosen to produce any evidence. Subsequently, evidence of respondent-company was closed and the case was fixed for final hearing on 27.10.2017." 10. In the instant case, it is evident that the learned Tribunal had given sufficient opportunity to the appellants/claimants to lead their evidence but inspite of that, the appellants/claimants have failed to lead their evidence without any reason or rhyme. The reasons submitted by the appellants/claimants for leading no evidence are not sufficient or justified. 11. Admittedly, the impugned F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of fifteen-days and no satisfactory explanation had been given for delay in lodging the F.I.R. by the appellants/claimants. 12. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Ram Chandra and another Vs. Ram Chandra, reported as 2020 (1) D.N.J. (Raj.) 49, held as under :- "4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents/claimants have not been able to reasonably explain the delay caused in the FIR. It is no doubt that an FIR can be lodged with delay but though mere result of the FIR would not have impact on the nature of civil proceedings, but in a primary reaction, the FIR must be seen to the totality regarding the liability of the parties. In the present case, the respondents have miserably failed to give any good reason for lodging the FIR after a delay of one month when the police station itself was only a half kilometer from the place of accident. The precedent law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant clearly applies to the facts of the case. 5. In light of the above, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 12.3.1999 passed by the M.A.C.T., Udaipur is quashed and set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned Tribunal be send back forthwith." 13. In view of above, there is no substance in the appeal and the same, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.