[2026:RJ-JP:6711]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5712/2018 Gopal S/o Badri Jat, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Bapudunda, Police Station, Pachewar, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Rajasthan)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramavtar S/o Ramdev, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bapudunda, Police Station, Pachewar, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Owner Of Motorcycle No. Rj-26-/sh-

4668)

2. Ramlal S/o Shriram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Bapudunda, Police Station, Pachewar, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Driver Of Motorcycle No. Rj-26/sh-

4668)

3. National Insurance Company Limited, 94-B Harikripa Jawahar Nagar, Transport Nagar, Sawai Madhopur Through Its Manager, Effective From 27.06.2012 To 26.06.2013 (Rajasthan) (Insurance Company Of Motorcycle No. Rj-26/sh-4668)

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramswaroop Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

12/02/2026

1. By way of filing the instant civil misc. appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment/award dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malpura (Tonk) (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.49/2013, by which the claim petition submitted by the appellant-claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimant’)

under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant was standing on Malpura Vyas Circle on 03.06.2013 around 8.00-9.00 PM, where one Ramavtar came on a motorbike bearing No.RJ-26-SH-4668 and asked the claimant to accompany him, thereafter, the claimant sat on the motorbike. Counsel submits that since Ramavtar was riding the motorbike in rash & negligent manner, caused an accident, due to which, the petitioner fell down from the motorbike and sustained multiple injuries and fracture on his head, mouth and neck. Thereafter, he was admitted in Saket Hospital, Jaipur on the same day and his jaw was operated there. Counsel submits that the report of the aforesaid incident was registered with the Police Station Diggi Malpura, District Tonk on 02.07.2013. Counsel submits that the aforesaid delay occurred because the claimant remained under treatment in the hospital and after getting recovery from the injuries, the matter was reported.

3. Counsel submits that the claim petition has been rejected on two technical counts; one, there was delay of 30 days in lodging the FIR and second, there was no mention in the medical papers about the injuries suffered by the claimant in the road accident. Counsel submits that the admission- discharge ticket of the hospital related to the claimant indicates that the claimant has suffered Road Traffic Injury (for short, ‘RTA’) on 03.06.2013 by motorbike. This fact has been overlooked by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim petition submitted by the claimant, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submits that there was an inordinate delay of 30 days in lodging the FIR, which causes serious doubt over the alleged accident. He further submits that no documentary evidence was produced on the record to indicate that the claimant has suffered injuries in the said road accident, as this fact was inquired by the investigator of the Insurance Company and even no ‘rapat rojnamcha’ was found, which indicates that any such accident has occurred on the fateful day i.e. on 03.06.2013. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim petition submitted by the claimant, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

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

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the claimant has suffered certain injuries on various p