[2026:RJ-JP:7039]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2754/2022

1. Smt. Subhita W/o Shri Maniram, aged about 49 Years, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

2. Maniram S/o Naurangram, aged about 51 Years, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Appellants Versus

1. Salim S/o Chhotu Khan, R/o Gusaiyo Ka Mohalla, Merta City, P. Station Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.). (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. RJ-07-GA-6224)

2. Mohammad Salim S/o Safi Mohammad, R/o Sangam Vihar Colony, Merta City, Station Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.). (Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. RJ-07-

GA-6224)

3. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Ground Floor And Basement, 29-B, White Sapphire Apartments Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur-302004 Through Branch Manager. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Truck No. RJ-07-GA-6224).

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

13/02/2026

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the claim petition submitted by the claimants-appellants (for short, ‘the claimants’) has been rejected.

2. Counsel for the claimants submits that on the date of incident i.e. 30.06.2019, the deceased-Sushil Kumar was walking from his house to Nabipura but on the way the driver of the truck bearing No. RJ07-GA-6224 caused the accident by driving the aforesaid truck in a rash and negligent manner wherein the deceased-Sushil Kumar was grievously injured and thereafter, he was taken to a hospital for treatment where he died. Counsel submits that the accident has occurred because of the negligent driving of the truck driver i.e. respondent No.1. Counsel submits that FIR No. 52/2019 was registered with the Police Station Mandawa District Jhunjhunu wherein after investigation, charge- sheet was submitted. Counsel submits that a claim petition was submitted by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased-Sushil Kumar but the same was rejected on a technical count that the number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR. Counsel submits that the incident occurred on 30.06.2019 and the informant Sardar Singh got the information regarding the offending vehicle from the driver of the Ambulance which took the deceased-Sushil Kumar to the hospital. Counsel submits that the informant was not the eye-witness of the incident and the statements of the eye witness AW2-Bhawani Singh were recorded on the next date i.e. 01.07.2019 wherein he mentioned the registered number of the offending vehicle/truck. Counsel submits that this was the precise reason that the registered number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR. Counsel submits that once the statements of the eye- witnesses were recorded on the next day of the incident, wherein the registered number of the offending vehicle was mentioned, then there was no reason or occasion available with the Tribunal to reject the claim petition on this technical count. Hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the claimants and submits that the instant case is a case of hit and run, hence the number of the vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR. Counsel submits that it appears that the accident has been caused by an unknown vehicle and therefore, the registered number of the vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR. Counsel submits that AW2-Bhawani Singh is not an eye-witness of the incident, rather he reached the spot after the accident. Counsel submits that even in the site plant (Ex. 6), the registered number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned, rather it has been mentioned therein that the accide