Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1261 (RAJ)

Ramkishan Raigar S/o Shri Gorulal Raigar v. Mukesh Raigar S/o Shri Durgalal Raigar

2025-05-07

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2025
ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. 1. Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the judgment/award dated 09.09.2019, passed by the Court of learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.1, Bundi (Rajasthan) (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim No.293/2018 C.I.S. No.293/2018, whereby the aforesaid claim petition filed by them was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the present appellants-claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal stating therein that on 04.03.2018, their mother-Dhapu Bai was standing on the left side of a road, waiting for a mode of conveyance to travel some place else. Around that time, the driver of the car bearing registration no.RJ-08-CA-1008, in a rash and negligent manner hit their mother due to which she sustained grievous injuries on her head and on different parts of her body, which resulted into her death. 3. After issuance of notice by the Claims Tribunal, the non-claimant No.1- Mukesh Raigar-who is the registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed a written statement of denial. 4. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company also filed a written statement of denial, mentioning therein that the offending vehicle has been falsely involved in the alleged accident and the report regarding the alleged accident has been lodged after a considerable delay. It is further mentioned that the appellants- claimants & the non-claimant No.1-Mukesh do not share good relations. Further, at the time of the alleged accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed five issues, including the relief. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that owing to some family problems relating to their economic position, they could not produce the evidence before the Claims Tribunal but still, the Claims Tribunal decided all the four issues against them, without any evidence. Learned counsel further submits that it is an admitted fact that the mother of the appellants-claimants died as a consequence of the alleged accident by the vehicle in question, but the Claims Tribunal has ignored the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that it is an admitted fact that the mother of the appellants-claimants died as a consequence of the alleged accident by the vehicle in question, but the Claims Tribunal has ignored the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order. Learned counsel also submits that the Government Hospital, Bundi conducted the postmortem of the deceased-Dhapu Bai and in the postmortem report it is specifically mentioned that her death occurred due to multiple injuries received due to the alleged accident. Learned counsel also submits that it is a fact that after investigation, the Investigation Agency found the case to be proved and submitted the challan against the driver of the vehicle in question under Sections 304-A & 279 of IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order suffers from perversity and the findings recorded against the appellants-claimants cannot be sustained in the eyes of law because the Claims Tribunal while deciding all the issues has awarded a nominal amount, which is liable to be enhanced looking at the facts of the case. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- Insurance Company opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and submits that the impugned judgment has been passed by the Claims Tribunal after meticulously examining the entire material made available to it. 8. Considered the submissions advanced by both the counsels appearing for the respective parties. 9. In cases of this category like the present one, it is left to the parties in the claim petition filed by the Appellant herein or other claimants to let in their respective evidence and the burden is on them to prove negligence on part of the driver, in causing the accident. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court. In such an event, the claim petition would be considered on its own merits. The court will assess the credibility, consistency, and clarity of this evidence. It is needless to observe that if the proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is not established, then, in that event, the claim petition will be disposed of accordingly. 10. In accident claim cases, the burden of proving that the accident caused the death of the person generally rests with the claimant. It is needless to observe that if the proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is not established, then, in that event, the claim petition will be disposed of accordingly. 10. In accident claim cases, the burden of proving that the accident caused the death of the person generally rests with the claimant. This legal principle is grounded in the broader concept of the burden of proof, a cornerstone of civil litigation. In wrongful death claims arising from accidents, the claimant must provide sufficient and credible evidence linking the accident to the deceased's demise. The evidence must show not only that the accident occurred but also that it was the factual and legal cause of death. The principle stems from the adversarial nature of the legal system, which operates under the assumption that each party presents its case and evidence. The defendant, such as an insurance company or an alleged negligent party, does not have to disprove the claimant’s allegations until the claimant establishes a prima facie case. This places an initial evidential burden on the claimant to substantiate the causal link between the accident and the resulting death. 11. In the present case at hand, the learned Tribunal had framed certain issues, such that the burden of proving issue No. 1, 2 and 3 was on the applicant side, while the burden of proving issue No. 4 was on the non-applicant insurance company. However, despite having been given sufficient chances, the applicants neither adduced nor proved any evidence in relation to the issues so concerned. Another pertinent observation is that the applicants have not presented any evidence pertaining to the negligence and callousness of the non-applicant driver in the concerned accident, nor has the fact of death of Dhapu Bai in consequence to the accident been proved. 12. Thus, in summary, in accident-related death claims, the burden of proving causation—establishing that the accident caused the death falls squarely on the claimant. The success of the claim hinges on the strength and sufficiency of the evidence presented. 13. In the instant scenario, in this Court’s opinion, the applicants have failed to prove the issues in their favour and have also failed to prove the fact of involvement of the accused’s vehicle or the negligence and carelessness on part of the driver in causation of the said accident. 14. 13. In the instant scenario, in this Court’s opinion, the applicants have failed to prove the issues in their favour and have also failed to prove the fact of involvement of the accused’s vehicle or the negligence and carelessness on part of the driver in causation of the said accident. 14. Hence the applicants are not entitled to receive any compensation since the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle has not been duly proved and the learned Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in dismissing the claim petition. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed having no merit. 15. Stay application as well as pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.