Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Labour and employment and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Thawri W/o. Shri Lalu B/c Meena and ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 231 of 2004
Decided On : 08-09-2025
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Saruparia assisted by Mr. Lokendra Singh Chundawat
The Motor Vehicles Act prioritizes victim compensation in accidents, allowing belated claims without strict adherence to technical limitations.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claims for compensation - An appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's judgment awarding compensation of Rs.1,08,400/- to the claimant for injuries suffered in an accident on 15.05.1984 - Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Jeep by respondent Hurma, supported by evidence from the criminal case leading to Hurma's conviction. (Paras 4, 8, 10, 13, 14)
(B) Delay in filing claim petition - The Court held that a belated claim petition cannot be dismissed due to delay as the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at victims of accidents, invoking Article 137 of the Limitation Act is inappropriate as the legislature intended to provide relief without restricting timelines. (Paras 13)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, Smt. Thawri, was injured in an accident while traveling towards Udaipur, where she sustained multiple injuries due to negligence of the Jeep driver Hurma. The claim was filed years after the incident but proved with substantial evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's assessment of the facts supported the award for compensation without any illegality.
Issues: Key issues included the establishment of negligence by Hurma and consideration of the delay in filing the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the intent of the Motor Vehicles Act to prioritize victim's rights over technicalities in procedural timelines.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. negligence in causing the accident (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 2. justification on filing delays in claims (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. compensation awarded based on evidence of negligence (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. legislation aims to benefit accident victims (Para 13) |
| 5. final decision on appeal—dismissal (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
1. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants and the present appeal is pending since the year 2004, therefore, the same is being heard and decided finally today itself.
2. Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent-claimant.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respondent-claimant.
4. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to the ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 326/96 MAC (Smt. Thawri V/s Hurma & Ors.), whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondent/claimant was allowed and an amount of Rs.1,08,400/- was awarded as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the respondent-claimant in the accident occurred on 15.05.1984.
5. Briefly noted the facts in the present appeal are that on 15.05.1984 at around 10:00 a.m., while respondent- claimant was going towards Udaipur, a Jeep bearing registration No. R.S.G.6740 being driven by Hurma met with an accident in which the respondent-claimant- Smt. Thawri sustained a number of injuries. She was taken to the hospital, where, she was given treatment. On account of this accident, the respondent-claimant- Smt. Thawari preferred a claim petition before the learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal, after framing the four issues, decided the claim petition vide judgment and award dated 31.10.2003. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
6. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants, however, as per the memo of appeal, it shows that the appellants have preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal while passing the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003 has committed an illegality and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the evidence available on record.
7. It is also mentioned in the appeal that the claim petition has been preferred after a delay of more than 11 years as the accident was occurred on 15.05.1984 and the claim petition was filed by the respondent-claimant on 20.06.1995 and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in approaching the learned Tribunal. On this ground, the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003 may be quashed and set-aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submits that the factum of accident has been proved before the learned Tribunal by placing cogent evidence in the matter. He further submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on all the issues clearly goes to show that the respondent-claimant has met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2- Hurma while driving the Jeep of the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that even in the criminal case registered against respondent No.2- Hurma, the learned trial Court has passed an order of conviction. He also submits that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal while passing the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003 do not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the present civil misc. appeal may be dismissed.
9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.
10. The facts in the matter noted by the Tribunal clearly show that on 15.05.1984, the respondent-claimant- Smt. Thawari met with an accident with a Jeep of the appellants being driven by respondent No.2- Hurma. The respondent-claimant has suffered injuries and she was taken to the hospital. The documents with respect to the injuries and the bills of expenditure incurred for treatment have also been placed on record. The learned Trib
