Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Nandlal and Ors - Appellant
Versus
Mahaveer Synthetics and Ors - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 467, 466 of 2001
Decided On : 08-08-2019
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - DEATH AND INJURY - BURDEN OF PROOF - INVOLVEMENT OF VEHICLE - EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY - CREDIBILITY - SECTION 133 NOTICE - CRIMINAL COURT FINDINGS - RELEVANCE - M.V. ACT, 1988, SECTION 133.
Fact of the Case:
In a motor vehicle accident case, the appellants claimed compensation for the death of their son and injuries sustained by the appellant-father. They alleged that the accident was caused by a jeep driven rashly and negligently by the respondent. The respondent denied involvement in the accident and was acquitted in the criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions, holding that the appellants failed to prove that the accident was caused by the respondent's jeep. The Tribunal found that the appellants' eyewitness testimony was not credible and that the notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act was not reliable. The Tribunal also considered the findings of the criminal court, which acquitted the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants proved that the accident was caused by the respondent's jeep? 2. Whether the eyewitness testimony of the appellant-father was credible? 3. Whether the notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act was reliable? 4. Whether the findings of the criminal court were relevant in the MACT proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the claimants to prove that the accident was caused by the respondent's vehicle. 2. The eyewitness testimony of the appellant-father was not credible as he failed to explain the delay in disclosing the name and number of the jeep and his wife, who was also an eyewitness, was not produced as a witness. 3. The notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act was not reliable as the owner of the jeep denied making the inscription on the document and the criminal court acquitted the respondent. 4. The findings of the criminal court are not binding on the MACT, but they have persuasive value.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. The present misc. appeals arise out of the same accident involving similar facts, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment.
2. Appeal No. 467/2001 arises out of the MACT Claim Case No. 456/94 decided on 09/01/2001 for the payment of compensation on account of the death of Anil who was the son of the appellants, whereas Appeal No. 466/2001 arises out of the MACT Claim Case No. 457/1994 decided on 09/01/2001 wherein the appellant Nandlal prayed for compensation to be paid to him for having suffered injuries in the accident.
3. In pursuance of the two claim petitions preferred before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara being Claim Case No. 456/94 (for the death of Anil) and 457/94 (for the injuries suffered by Nandlal), learned Tribunal framed seven issues.
4. The issue No. 1 in both the claim cases read as under:-
^^1- vk;k izkFkhZx.kksa ds iq= dh e`R;q foi{kh la- ,d ds LokfeRo] foi{kh la- 3 ds ikl chfer thi ua- vkj-ts-06@lh& 1218 dks mlds pkyd xksre }kjk mrkoysiu o ykijokgh ls pyk;s tkus ds dkj.k gqbZ \
--- izkFkhZx.k^^
Claim Case No. 457/94
^^1- vk;k izkFkhZ foi{kh la- ,d ds LokfeRo] foi{kh la- 3 ds ikl chfer thi ua- vkj-ts-06@lh& 1218 dks mlds pkyd xksre }kjk mrkoysiu o ykijokgh ls pyk;s tkus ds dkj.k pksVxzLr gqvk \
--- izkFkhZx.k^^
5. The other issues are not being reproduced by this Court for the reason that basically the finding on issue No. 1 is only relevant in these two appeals.
6. The factual details necessary to be noted in this case are that on 17/07/1994 at about 9 p.m. while the appellant, his son Anil and Smt. Durga Devi (wife of Nandlal) were travelling on a Spark Moped from Sanganeri Gate to R.C. Vyas Colony, they met with an accident in front of the house of Dr. S.K. Sharma. It is stated that they met with an accident from a jeep which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Gauttam. The Moped was being driven by Anil with a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. Immediately after dashing the jeep with the Moped, the driver of the jeep escaped from the scene of accident. Appellant's son Anil succumbed to the injuries on the spot, whereas appellant Nandlal received grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital at Bhilwara. On the next day, he was shifted to the hospital at Ahmedabad where he remained admitted for 20 days. On the said day of incident i.e. on 17/07/1994 at around 10 p.m. Arun Kumar who is the other son of the appellant Nandlal lodged an F.I.R. It was in these circumstances police investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, statement of Smt. Durga was also recorded. The police after investigation filed challan against the driver of the jeep under Sections 279 and 304A IPC but after the trial charges were not found to be proved against the respondent driver i.e. Gauttam and, therefore, he was acquitted in the criminal case.
7. The appellants in their claim petitions reiterated that the Moped was driven by Anil on the correct side of the road in the slow speed and because of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Gauttam, the accident had taken place resulting into the death of Anil and causing severe injuries to the appellant- Nandlal.
8. Before the Tribunal, the pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties. The appellant Nandlal appeared in the witness box besides other witnesses. The documents of the criminal case were also filed before the learned Tribunal as well as the other relevant documents including the documents relating to insurance of vehicle etc.
9. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the entire evidence on record decided the issue No. 1 against the appellants holding that it cannot be proved in the circumstances that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Jeep No. RJ-06/C-1218 and thus the claim petitions were dismissed vide two separate orders of the same date i.e. on 09/01/2001.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
