[2026:RJ-JP:7320]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 706/2023 Satyendra Kumar S/o Sumer Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Rajwada Thana And Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar. ----Appellant Versus

1. Kaasam Khan S/o Kadku Khan, R/o Khanpur Mewan Tehsil Kishangarhbas Distt. Alwar(Driver Trolla No. RJ-

14-GB-3869).

2. Roshan Lal S/o Leela Ram, R/o Pawala Rajput, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur (Owner Trolla No. RJ-14-GB-

3869)

3. Chola Mandlam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch E-52-Arg Building, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Ins. Co.

Trolla No. RJ-14-GB-3869).

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brahma Prakash Mr. Sanjay Gurjar with Mr. Ritesh Kumawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

16/02/2026

1. By way of filing the instant civil misc. appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment/award dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mundawar, District Alwar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.121/18, by which the claim petition submitted by the appellant-claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimant’)

has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant met with an accident in the intervening night of 01/02.11.2014 at about 01.00 AM, when he was going on a motorcycle along with Jitendra from Mirjapur to Jaguwas. He submits that a trolla bearing No.RJ-14-GB-3869 caused the said accident by striking the motorcycle of the claimant due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. The accident was caused by the driver of by driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Counsel submits that the claimant has suffered several injuries on various parts of the body and he lost vision of his both eyes, for which a disability certificate has been issued by the Medical Board, which reflects that the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability. Counsel submits that the factum of accident is not disputed, even then, the claim petition submitted by the claimant seeking suitable amount of compensation has been rejected, not on merits, but on a technical count that there is a delay of 22 days in lodging the FIR. Counsel submits that the claimant remained hospitalized for the intervening period, and thereafter, the FIR was registered. Counsel submits that the niceties of the said delay should not come in the way while deciding the claim petition submitted by the claimant in such like matter, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submits that no record of hospitalization after 10.11.2014 has been produced on the record, while the FIR has been registered on 24.11.2014. Counsel submits that no explanation about the inordinate delay of the intervening period of registering the FIR has been explained by the claimant before the Tribunal. Counsel further submits that the investigation remained pending for a period of one year from the date of registration of the FIR and abruptly the said investigation was completed in one single day, which causes serious doubt about the factum of accident and these facts have been appreciated by the Tribunal, while rejecting the claim petition submitted by the claimant, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that an FIR has been registered on 24.11.2024, wherein, it has been alleged that the claimant met with an accident, which has been caused by the driver of the vehilce-trolla bearing No.RJ-14-GB-3869. This fact is not in dispute that the FIR has been registered after a delay of 22 days and during the course of investigation, a notice under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the owner of the veh