Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 655 (RAJ)

Gulab Saini v. Bhgwan Singh

2022-02-23

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.05.2017, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Alwar (for short 'the learned Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.230/2013 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants- appellants has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed gross illegality in rejecting the claim petition on three grounds. Firstly that the eye witness Kailash and Munshi Ram were not examined and the colour of the vehicle was white, while it was mentioned as yellow in the report lodged by the informant Babu Lal. Secondly, counsel submits that the Tribunal has further erred in holding that the vehicle i.e. Mini Bus bearing No.RJ-32-PA-0562 was not involved in the accident. Thirdly, that 'Rojnamcha' report of the accident was not produced by the appellants on the record of the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that as per the charge sheet submitted by the police after investigation, Ex.P-1, AW-2 Rohitash Yadav is the eye witness of the incident in whose presence the accident occurred and his name is there in the list of charge sheet submitted by the police before the competent Court of law. Learned counsel further submits that the report was lodged by Babu Lal, who is elder brother of the deceased, he was not aware about the colour and number of vehicle, but immediately on the same date, he mentioned the name of the vehicle and on the basis of the same, investigation was done and mechanical report of the offending vehicle bearing No.RJ-32-PA- 0562 was done and the sketches and signs of the accident were found on the body of the offending vehicle. Lastly, he argued that the claimants have submitted the material available with them at the time of filing the claim petition. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the claimants has to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance and probability and the principle of strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required to be established by the claimants in the Motor Accidents Claim cases. 5. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal R.T.C. & Ors.' reported in 2009(1) CCR 627 (SC). 6. 5. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal R.T.C. & Ors.' reported in 2009(1) CCR 627 (SC). 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality while rejecting the claim petition filed by the claimants. Learned counsel further submitted that eye witnesses of the incident were not produced on the record and 'rojnamcha' of the accident was also not produced on the record, as such, Tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim petition of the claimants-appellants. Lastly, learned counsel argued that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is just legal, which needs no interference of this Court. 7. Heard. 8. I have considered the impugned judgment and the documents available on the record. It is not disputed that AW-2 Rohitash Yadav is the eye witness of the accident in whose presence the accident occurred and he provided the number of vehicle to the elder brother of the deceased. On the basis of which, the elder brother of the deceased lodged FIR and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against the offending vehicle bearing No.RJ-32-PA-0562. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the cross-examination done by the Insurance Company of the witness AW-2 Rohitash Yadav, who has categorically stated that he was aware of the number of vehicle and he told the number of vehicle to the elder brother of the deceased. The Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the other two eye witnesses Kailash and Munshi Ram have not been examined. 9. It is the well settled principle of law that the claimants are supposed to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and they are not required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the theory of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable in the motor accident claim cases. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bimla Devi (supra) has held in Para No.14 and 15 as under:- '14. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly proceeded on the basis that apparently there was absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bimla Devi (supra) has held in Para No.14 and 15 as under:- '14. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly proceeded on the basis that apparently there was absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Claimant was not at the place of occurrence. She, therefore, might not be aware of the details as to how the accident took place but the fact that the First Information Report had been lodged in relation to an accident could not have been ignored. Some discrepancies in the evidences of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have been taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.' 11. Without commenting any merits and demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that while dismissing the claim petition of the claimants on hyper technical grounds, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Bimla Devi (supra). 12. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the Tribunal has not discussed the evidence available on the record in a proper manner produced by the claimants to prove their case. In view of the above, the impugned judgment dated 12.05.2017 is quashed and set aside. 13. 12. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the Tribunal has not discussed the evidence available on the record in a proper manner produced by the claimants to prove their case. In view of the above, the impugned judgment dated 12.05.2017 is quashed and set aside. 13. The matter is remanded back to the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Alwar with a direction to decide the matter afresh on the issues after providing opportunities to both parties within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as dictated above. Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14.03.2022. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.