[2026:RJ-JP:6958]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1092/2008

1. Smt. Suman W/o late Shri Satish Kumar, aged about 22 years.

2. Sachin Son of Late Shri Satish Kumar aged about 3 years, minor through her natural guaraian mother Smt. suman, Appellant No.1

3. Shri Birju S/o Sohan lal, aged about 48 years, 4. Smt. Ratan Kaur W/o Biriu, aged about 46 years.

All R/o Kathka majra, Tehsil Behror Distt. Alwar ----Appellant Versus

1. Shri Dhadaram S/o Shri Kanaram, R/O Jagatpura, Tehsil Amer P.S. Chandwaji, Distt. Jaipur (Driver of the tractor No. RJ-02-RA-

1302)

2. Shri Kanhaiya Ram S/o Shri Bhanwra Ram R/o Rasnali, P.s. Bansoor Distt. Alwar (Raj. (Owner of the tractor No. RJ-02-RA-

1302)

3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its regional Manager, regional office at Sahara Chamberws, Tonk Road, Jaipur. (Insurance Company of the tractor No.RJ-02-RA-1302)

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raaj Pal Chaudhary JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

13/02/2026

1. By way of filing the instant appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 18.08.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [A.D.J. (Fast Track)], Behror District Alwar (for short “the Tribunal”) by which the claim petition submitted by the claimants-appellants (for short “the claimants”), i.e., MAC Case No.227/2006 has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that on the date of incident, i.e., 20.01.2006 the deceased-Satish Kumar was travelling on a motor bike bearing No. RJ-02-SA-3814 for the purpose of his domestic affairs. When he reached near Shera Rajputana Hotel, the rider of the tractor driving the tractor in rash and negligent manner applied the breaks and struck the motor bike of the deceased causing the accident wherein the deceased- Satish Kumar died on the spot. Learned counsel submits that the matter was reported to the Police Station Behror where FIR No.28/2006 was registered and after investigation, the charge- sheet was submitted against the driver of the said tractor. Learned counsel submits that on account of death of the deceased-Satish Kumar, the claimants approached the Tribunal by way of filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) seeking suitable amount of compensation, but the same has been rejected by the Tribunal on conjectures and surmises by recording a finding that the speed of the tractor might have been slow because of the bricks loaded on it. Learned counsel submits that this cannot be a ground for rejection of the claim petition as the Police has submitted a charge-sheet against the driver of the tractor, hence, there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the entire claim cannot be rejected on this technical count, and if the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased was also negligent then it could have been a case of contributory negligence. Learned counsel submits that all these facts were overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the claimants and submits that a mere filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of the tractor is not sufficient as the situation prevailing at the relevant time reveals that the speed of the tractor might have been slow because of loading the bricks and the deceased was driving the motor cycle at a high speed and he did not maintain appropriate distance from the tractor and that is why because of the negligence of the deceased-Satish Kumar, the accident has occurred. Hence, the Tribunal has recorded a cogent finding that driver of the tractor was not liable and responsible for the accident and the claim petition submitted by the claimants has been rightly rejected. Hence, under these