Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1312 (RAJ)

Dharma Banjara v. Ballu Banjara

2023-07-06

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-claimant (for short 'the claimant') against the judgment dtd. 5/3/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. B.T. 576/2015(317/2014), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant in toto. 2. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the impugned judgment dtd. 5/3/2018 is absolutely contrary to law, evidence on record, facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the evidence adduced by the claimant. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the claimant wanted to lodge an FIR but the FIR was not lodged by the police, so, he filed a complaint before the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate sent the complaint for registration of FIR. The claimant had bona-fide ground in lodging the FIR belatedly. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that the claimant adduced the evidence to the effect that the nonclaimant No.1-Ballu Banjara was driving the tractor and when the claimant alighted the tractor and was trying to remove the stones, Ballu Banjara ran the tractor over his right leg. So, the claimant had received multiple injuries. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that as per the insurance cover note, said tractor was commercially registered. So, it cannot be said that the alleged tractor was only for the agricultural purposes. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that the evidence adduced by the nonclaimants also supports the case of the claimant. So, judgment & award passed by the Tribunal may be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance upon the following judgments. (1) V. Renganathan & Anr. Vs. Branch Manager, United Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in 2023 ACJ 623 ; (2) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Hanuman Singh in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5500/2009 decided on 25/11/2019; (3) Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors. reported in 2011 R.A.R. 81 (SC) (4) New India Insurance Company Vs. Darshana Devi & Ors. reported in MACD 2008 (SC) 74; (5) Gopali Kushwaha Vs. Bhanwar Singh & Anr. reported in 2017 (1) DNJ(Raj.) 88. 4. Hanuman Singh in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5500/2009 decided on 25/11/2019; (3) Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors. reported in 2011 R.A.R. 81 (SC) (4) New India Insurance Company Vs. Darshana Devi & Ors. reported in MACD 2008 (SC) 74; (5) Gopali Kushwaha Vs. Bhanwar Singh & Anr. reported in 2017 (1) DNJ(Raj.) 88. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/non-claimants (for short ('the non-claimants') have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that the claimant was gratuitous passenger and tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes and trolley was uninsured. As per the evidence adduced by the claimant, he was sitting in the tractor which was not permissible. He was an unauthorized passenger in the tractor. Learned counsel for the non-claimants further submitted that the tractor owner and driver are relatives of the claimant. They hatched a conspiracy and falsely implicated the alleged tractor in the accident. As per the medical report, claimant fell from height. So, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present civil miscellaneous appeal may be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the non-claimants have relied upon the following judgments:- (1) Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Guddi & Ors. in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5971/2018 decided on 16/6/2023; (2) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma & Ors. reported in III (2005) ACC 423; (3) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rattani & ors. in Civil Appeal No.7399/2008 decided on 18/12/2008; (4) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Vedwati & Ors. reported in MACD 2007 (1) (SC) 265; (5) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prema Devi & Ors. reported in MACD 2008 (SC) 129. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant as well as learned counsel for the nonclaimants. As per the evidence relied by the claimant as well as nonclaimants, it is an admitted position that the claimant was sitting as an unauthorized passenger in the alleged tractor. As per the medical evidence, claimant fell from height. As per the insurance cover note, tractor could be used only for commercial purposes, and its carrying/sitting capacity was one, whereas the claimant was sitting as a gratuitous passenger in the said tractor in addition to the driver of the offending tractor. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant. So, the present civil miscellaneous appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands accordingly dismissed.