SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.
Kasana Ram, S/o. Shri Roopa Ram – minor through his natural guardian uncle Shri Bhava, S/o. Shri Hemaji – Appellant
Versus
Hindu Singh, S/o. Shri Vagh Singh and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 315 Of 2004
Decided On : 24-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Arora with Mr. Manish Rajpurohit.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jagdish Vyas.

Point of Law: Section 6 of Act of 1956 prescribes pre-requisites for a valid adoption.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304-A - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166(d) - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 11, 6, 9, 8 - Adoption is not proved - Not entitled to get any compensation - Appeal is directed against judgment and award whereby Tribunal has dismissed claim petition filed by appellant-claimant – Four daughters of deceased were not impleaded as parties.

Finding of the Court :

Tribunal has rightly observed that merely based on mutation entry and that too after death of deceased is of no value and not sufficient to prove fact of adoption - It is further to state that in claim petition filed before Tribunal, daughters of deceased were not impleaded as parties - From statements of AW-2 and AW-3, it is apparent that deceased had four daughters - It is evident from claim petition filed before Tribunal that four daughters of deceased were not impleaded as parties - Above facts are enough to cast doubt about validity of adoption of by deceased - Appellant has miserably failed to prove his status as an adopted son/legal heir of deceased.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.01.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhinmal, District Jalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant.

2. The claimant filed the claim petition through his natural guardian, uncle Shri Bhava with the averments that on 24.04.2002, respondent No. 1 – Hindu Singh, while driving the L.P. Truck, bearing registration No. GRN-5674 rashly and negligently hit his mother, Smt. Gigi, which resulted in grievous injuries to her and during the treatment, she died; an FIR was registered at the Police Station Chitalvana, in which, after investigation, a challan against respondent No. 1 – Hindu Singh was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. Based on the averments, a compensation of Rs. 6,65,000/-was claimed.

3. A reply to the claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1 – Hindu Singh, denying all the averments made in the claim petition; it was stated that the fact of adoption of appellant Kasana Ram by the deceased is not proved and, as such, he is not entitled to get any compensation.

4. The Insurance Company also filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition; it was specifically objected that at the time of the accident, the driver of the Truck did not have any valid driving licence and, as such, policy conditions had been violated; it was stated that the appellant is not entitled to get any compensation as no documentary proof, regarding adoption, has been produced; it was also stated that at the time of the accident the vehicle in question was insured in the name of Balvant Singh, whereas, Balwant Singh was not the registered owner of the vehicle in question and, as such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The Tribunal, based on the averments of the parties, framed four issues; on behalf of the claimant, statements of four witnesses were recorded, and thirteen documents were exhibited; on behalf of respondents, no documentary, as well as oral evidence, was produced.

6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal vide judgment impugned decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant, but at the same time, issue No.2 was decided against the appellant and held that the claimant cannot be said to be the legally adopted son of the deceased and, as such, he is not entitled to get any compensation for the death of his mother, Smt. Gigi. Since the Insurance Company produced no oral or documentary evidence about its liability, therefore, issue No.3 was decided against it. As issue No.2 was decided against the claimant, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation, and his claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deciding issue No. 2 against the appellant. It is submitted that from the statements of witnesses produced by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant is the adopted son of deceased Smt. Gigi. It is submitted that from the perusal of Exhibit-13, it is clear that the mutation of the land belonging to Smt. Gigi was transferred in the appellant's name, and simply because no formal adoption deed was there, it cannot be said that the appellant was not the adopted son of deceased Smt. Gigi.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, while inviting the attention of this Court towards the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, submitted that under the said Act, what is required to be seen is the dependency, and in the present case Smt. Gigi had two daughters who were married, and her husband died earlier; she adopted the appellant, the son of her husband, and hence, the dependency on each other is proved, and the respondents have not refuted the same. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in deciding issue No.2 against the appellant and dismissing the claim filed by the appellant.

9. On the other hand, l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top