[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Seni Kanwar vs Balveer Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:22235) on 7 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:22235]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1157/2019
1. Seni Kanwar W/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 33
Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas, Tehsil
Bilara, District Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Near Gita
Bhawan, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
2. Mst. Khushbu Kanwar D/o Narayan Singh, Aged About
10 Years, (Minor) Minor Represented Through Natural
Guardian Mother Smt. Seni Kanwar Appellant No. 1. B/
c Rajput, R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas, Tehsil Bilara,
District Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Near Gita
Bhawan, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
3. Parvat Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 8 Years,
(Minor) Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian
Mother Smt. Seni Kanwar Appellant No. 1. B/c Rajput,
R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas, Tehsil Bilara, District
Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Near Gita Bhawan,
Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
4. Kishore Singh S/o Sabal Singh, Aged About 58 Years,
B/c Rajput, R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas, Tehsil Bilara,
District Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Near Gita
Bhawan, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
5. Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar W/o Kishore Singh, Aged About
56 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas,
Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur. Presently Residing At
Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District
Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Balveer Singh S/o Bhairsingh, B/c Rawat, R/o 3
Jhuntha Ka Bas, Ps Javaja, District Ajmer. (Driver)
2. Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Dhanna Singh, B/c Rawat, R/o
Shahpura, Post Atitmand Beawar, Tehsil Beawar,
District Ajmer. (Owner)
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office
Sbbj Jaipur, Near Main Branch, Krishi Mandi Road,
Merta City, District Nagaur. (Insurer)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prashant Panwar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Joshi.
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (2 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/05/2025
1. Aggrieved by the judgment / award dated 29.01.2019
rendered in MAC Case No.3/2016 vide which the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed claim petition, the claimants
are before this Court in the instant appeal. They seek quashing of
the award and consequently the adequate compensation.
2. Brief facts first. A claim petition was filed seeking
compensation due to the death of Narayan Singh in a road
accident on 24.05.2015. On the ill-fated day, Narayan Singh and
Sadiq Khan were traveling by motorcycle (Registration No. RJ-19-
11M-9189) from Jaitiwas to Kaparada. Near Balasati Fanta on
National Highway No. 112, a Tavera car (Registration No. RJ-01-
UA-0280) owned by respondent No.2 and allegedly driven by
respondent No.1 in reckless manner and at high speed, struck
them from behind. Both riders sustained grievous injuries leading
to their death.
2.1 The appellants (claimants) herein filed claim petition MAC
No. 03/2016 and sought compensation of ₹67,80,000 under
various heads for the death of Narayan Singh. Another claim
petition MAC No. 01/2016 for compensation was filed by the legal
representatives of Sadiq.
2.2 While respondents No.1 and 2 did not submit any written
statement, respondent No.3, the insurer, filed its response.
2.3 After consolidating both the claim petitions–one by
Sahabudeen and others (No. 1/2016) and another by appellants
herein i.e. Smt. Seni Kanwar and others (No. 3/2016), the
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (3 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
Tribunal framed five issues, English translation of which is as
under :-
“1. Whether on 24.05.2015, the driver of the Tavera vehicle bearing
registration number RJ-01 UA-0280, Balveer Singh, caused the
accident by driving the vehicle negligently, at high speed, and
carelessly, resulting in the death of Mr. Sadiq Khan and Narayan
Singh? — Petitioners’ burden.
2. Whether at the time of the accident, Respondent No.1 was driving
the vehicle under the employment and control of Respondent No.2
(the vehicle owner) and for the benefit of the owner? — Petitioners’
burden.
3. Whether the Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) is not liable
to pay compensation based on the objections raised in its written
statement? — Insurance Company’s burden.
4. To what extent and from which of the opposite parties are the
petitioners entitled to receive compensation? — Petitioners’ burden.
5. Any other relief? — General consideration.”
3. The claimants presented three witnesses and submitted
various documents, which were duly exhibited. The respondents,
however, did not produce any evidence. After considering the
pleadings and arguments, the Tribunal decided issue No.1 against
the claimant-appellants and dismissed both the claim petitions
without recording any finding on the remaining issues.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the Tribunal
committed a grave error in deciding Issue No.1 against the
appellants and erroneously dismissed the claim petition. The
Tribunal’s finding that the appellants failed to prove the
involvement of the Tavera vehicle (RJ-01-UA-0280) in the accident
is said to be unsustainable, especially in light of the unrebutted
testimony of Mohaseen, an independent eyewitness. Mohaseen
clearly stated he witnessed the Tavera car, driven recklessly and at
high speed, hit the motorcycle from behind, causing both riders to
fall and sustain fatal injuries. He also confirmed that he informed
the deceased’s relatives and the police after the accident.
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (4 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
Although he did not know the victims beforehand, his account was
consistent and remained unchallenged during cross-examination.
4.1 In addition, the appellants relies on the police charge-sheet
filed against Respondent No.1 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
Despite this and the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the
respondents, the Tribunal dismissed the claim, which, the learned
counsel for the appellant argues, is contrary to the material on
record.
4.2 He asserts that there was no valid reason for the Tribunal to
disregard the testimony of Mohasin, whose neutrality added
credibility to his statement. Moreover, the Mechanical Test Officer’s
(MTO) report (Ex-13) confirmed dents on the bonnet and front
tyre of the Tavera, supporting its involvement in the accident.
4.3 The vehicle owner, in response to a notice under Section 133
of the Motor Vehicles Act, admitted to the incident and named the
driver responsible. The Tribunal’s reliance on the FIR’s mention of
a “heavy vehicle” to cast doubt on the Tavera’s involvement was
misplaced, as the FIR’s author was not an eyewitness. Instead,
the live testimony of Mohaseen, who directly witnessed the event,
should have been given greater weight.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company
argues in support of the finding recorded and impugned award
rendered by the learned Tribunal.
6. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
of learned counsels and perused the case file. I shall now proceed
to deal with the merits and demerits thereof and render my
opinion based on the discussion and reasoning contained
hereafter.
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (5 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
7. First and foremost, let us have a look at the impugned
award. The learned Tribunal while returning finding on issue No.1
observed / held that (English translation- as provided):-
“The burden to prove this issue was on the claimants. On behalf
of the claimants, AW-1 Shahabuddin, who is himself the
claimant, appeared as a witness. He gave a sworn statement that
Sadiq was his father. On 24.05.2015 at 11:45 AM, Sadiq was
going from Jaitiwās to Kaparda in the correct direction when
near Balasati, the Tavera vehicle No. 0280, driven by Balveer,
hit them from behind. The motorcycle was being driven by
Narayan Singh, and due to the collision, both died on the spot.
His uncle filed the accident report. The fault was of the Tavera
driver. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that he
was not present at the spot at the time of the incident. Neither
did he (AW-1 Shahabuddin) see Respondent No. 1 or 2. Another
claimant, AW-2 Senikanwar, also supported the previous
witness’s statement and testified under oath that her husband
Narayan Singh and Sadiq were traveling on a motorcycle from
Jaitiwās to Kaparda when near the Balasati junction, a vehicle
hit them from behind, resulting in the death of her husband and
Sadiq. She stated that she received information about the
incident later. During cross-examination, she admitted she was
not present at the scene. The FIR mentions an unknown vehicle,
which she agreed was correctly recorded. If we examine the
written report (Exhibit-4) registered on the same day by Karim
Khan and Prabhu Singh, it states that an unknown heavy vehicle
ran over the deceased, causing their immediate death. It also
mentions tire marks of a heavy vehicle over the bodies. However,
these two individuals were not eyewitnesses and the report does
not specify the vehicle number, type, or even the name of the
informant. The only specific detail mentioned is that there were
tire marks of a heavy vehicle on the bodies. However, in the
current case, it was later claimed during investigation that the
accident was caused by a Tavera car, which does not qualify as a
heavy vehicle. It is also unlikely that such tire marks would be
made by a Tavera passing over the bodies. The next day, i.e., on
25.05.2015, the claimants submitted another report stating that
upon inquiry, Mohsin, a resident of Bilada, who was riding a
motorcycle behind the deceased, informed them that on
24.05.2015, he saw a white Tavera vehicle No. RJ-01-UA-0280
hit the motorcycle RJ-19-11M-9189 from behind. The driver of
the Tavera, allegedly named Balveer Singh, admitted his fault
when stopped. However, the claimants also admitted they
themselves could not identify the driver, implying that the
identity of the vehicle and driver is based solely on the account
of eyewitness Mohsin. Now, referring to the deposition of this
key eyewitness, AW-3 Mohsin, he stated that about two and a
half years ago, he was going towards Balasati junction on his
motorcycle, following another motorcycle on which Narayan
Singh and Sadiq were riding, when a Tavera hit them from
behind. He mentioned the vehicle number RJ-01-UA-0280 and
identified the driver as Balveer. He also claimed to have(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (6 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]informed the family members of the deceased. During cross-
examination, he admitted that he did not know the deceased, did
not inform the police immediately, and left the spot after the
accident. He claimed he was illiterate, did not chase the Tavera,
and only went to the police station after reading the news in the
newspaper the next day. Thus, according to his own version, he
left the accident scene without informing police or the victims’
families. His sudden realization and identification of the vehicle
and driver the next day is unexplained. Given that he claims to
be illiterate, it is doubtful how he could read or recall the exact
number of the Tavera. Moreover, it is improbable that he could
have obtained the driver’s name at the scene if the vehicle had
fled after the incident. Therefore, the entry in Exhibit-5
mentioning the driver’s name and his confession appears
unreliable. It is notable that this lone eyewitness is the only
person to name the vehicle number, despite claiming to be
illiterate. In light of judicial precedent from Savitri Devi v.
Ramesh Chandra, 2006 (9) RRD 4661, it has been held that if
the claimant’s statements are misleading and present a
suspicious narrative clearly fabricated to obtain compensation,
the claim should be dismissed. Similarly, the Rajasthan High
Court in Mala Ram v. Supa Ram, 2004 RAR 543, held that the
tribunal should not blindly accept the claimant’s version of the
accident but must scrutinize the evidence for any doubt or
inconsistency. In Madan Gopal v. Mool Chand (Civil Appeal No.
10/2010, decided on 22.09.2014), the Hon’ble High Court
opined that if the evidence does not prove that the accident was
caused by the vehicle alleged, then merely presenting a charge
sheet or serving notices under Sections 133 and 134 of the MV
Act does not make the case automatically proven.
9. The advocate for the petitioners raises the question
regarding the absence of evidence from the respondent’s side. In
my humble opinion, the burden of proving the disputed issue
no.1 lies with the petitioners. Therefore, it is not necessary to
consider the petitioners’ statements as true merely because the
respondent has not presented evidence. Moreover, during cross-
examination, the involvement of the vehicle “Tavera” in the
incident has not been proven, and contradictions emerge from
the testimonies of eyewitnesses. It appears that the “Tavera”
vehicle has been falsely implicated in order to claim
compensation for the incident. It has not been proven that the
collision between the unknown vehicle and the deceased’s
motorcycle caused the fatal accident. Therefore, it is established
that the “Tavera” was falsely implicated. As a result, the disputed
issue No.1 is decided against the petitioners.
10. Since the petitioners have failed to prove disputed
issue No.1 in their favor, it is appropriate not to reach a
conclusion on the remaining issues. Therefore, the claim petition
filed by the petitioners are rejected and dismissed.”
8. Au contraire, my opinion is that there was/is sufficient
material available on record to show that the offending Tavera
vehicle (RJ-01-UA-0280) owned by respondent No.2 (Bhagwan
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (7 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
Singh) was involved in the accident; and that at the relevant time,
it was being driven by respondent No.1 (Balveer Singh); and that
the learned Tribunal wrongly held that it had been established that
the said vehicle was falsely implicated in order to claim
compensation for the incident. Let us see how.
9. In it’s defense pleaded in the reply to the claim petition,
stand taken by respondent No.3 (insurance company) inter alia, is
that Tavera car No. RJ-01-UA-0280 is registered as a private
vehicle. Whereas, in response to notice under section 133 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, the owner concerned (respondent No.2) stated
that the said vehicle was being taken from Beawar to Jodhpur for
bringing a patient. Therefore, it is obvious that the offending
vehicle was being plied for hire and monetary reward, in violation
of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence,
respondent No.3 has no liability in the case, is/was the defense.
10. Before proceeding further, Section 133 of the M.V. Act be
seen which states that :
“133. Duty of owner of motor vehicle to give information.–
The owner of a motor vehicle, the driver or conductor of
which is accused of any offence under this Act shall, on the
demand of any police officer authorised in this behalf by the
State Government, give all information regarding the name
and address of, and the licence held by, the driver or
conductor which is in his possession or could by reasonable
diligence be ascertained by him.”
Qua the consequences of failing to provide information under
Section 133 ibid, Section 187 of the M.V. Act states that :
“187. Punishment for offences relating to accident.-
Whoever fails to comply with the provisions of clause (c) of
sub-section (1) of section 132 or of section 133 or section
134 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to
five hundred rupees, or with both or, if having been
previously convicted of an offence under this section, he is
again convicted of an offence under this section, with(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (8 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both.”
10.1. Section 133 thus mandates that the owner/driver of a
motor vehicle shall, on the demand of any authorised police
officer, furnish full and truthful information regarding the identity
and particulars of the person driving the vehicle at the relevant
time. The object is to ensure transparency and prompt
identification of the driver responsible for any offence or accident,
so as to prevent concealment, evasion, or shifting of liability.
Failure to provide such an information on one hand has been
made punishable under Section 187, on the other hand, it is also
duty of the information provider not to mislead police officials. The
statutory obligation cast upon vehicle owners and drivers under
Section 133 ibid is thus not a mere procedural formality. It is a
mandatory legal requirement that serves a dual purpose: firstly, to
facilitate effective criminal investigation and prosecution of
offences under the Act, and secondly, to enable just adjudication
of civil liability under motor accident claim proceedings. In order
to enforce this duty with deterrent effect, Section 187 of the Act
provides for penal sanctions in case of any contravention. In cases
where the information furnished is intentionally false, misleading,
or obstructive to the course of investigation or claim
determination, the matter may not remain a mere procedural
lapse. More of it later.
11. Notices under section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act were
issued to respondent No.2 (Bhagwan Singh) respondent No.1
(Balveer Singh) in relation to the accident. The responses to those
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (9 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
notices, duly entered in the list of documents, were produced in
evidence by respondent No. 3/insurance company in the
proceedings before the learned Tribunal. The English version of the
responses are as under:
” Response of respondent No. 2 (Bhagwan Singh) to the notice
u/s 133 of MV Act in relation to Tavera vehicle No. RJ-01-UA-
0280 :
“I Bhagwan Singh Rawat am the registered owner of the
above vehicle of which all documents are being produced.
Balveer Singh son of Bhair Singh Rawat resident of Shahpura
Jhuta Ki Gali is the driver of my vehicle. On 24.05.15, he was
taking the empty vehicle from Beawar to Jodhpur for bringing a
patient when near village Kapra, two men on motor cycle were
hit, who were stated to have died. Information about this was
given to me by Balveer Singh. But due to delivery work, the
vehicle was not stopped. On the asking of police, I have brought
driver Balveer Singh to the police station.
Sd/- Bhagwan Singh
16.06.2015.”
Response of respondent No. 1 (Balveer Singh driver) to the
notice u/s 133 of MV Act in relation to Tavera vehicle No. RJ-01-
UA-0280 :
“I Balveer Singh give in writing that on 4.05.15, I was the driver
of the above mentioned vehicle. I was taking the empty vehicle
from Beawar to Jodhpur for bringing a patient. On NH 112 near
Kapra, two men on motor cycle were proceeding ahead of me
and got hit. Later, I heard that they had died. Bhagwan Singh is
the owner of the vehicle driven by me and I am his employee. I
am producing my DL.
Sd/- Balveer Singh
16.06.2015.”
11.1. The aforesaid information/responses of respondents No.1
and 2 Bhagwan Singh owner and Balveer Singh driver,
respectively, clearly show that Tavera vehicle No. RJ-01-UA-0280
was actually involved in the accident. At that time, it was being
driven by respondent No.2 Balveer Singh. These responses from
respondents No.1 and 2 Balveer Singh have the potential to
expose themselves to the liability for compensation. Thus the said
information is against their own pecuniary interest, as well as,
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (10 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
fraught with adverse consequences in pending criminal
proceedings in the FIR/trial qua accident and have very strong
probative value. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the legal effect
of these admissions by driver/owner, which, as stated, were
directly against their own pecuniary interest and made before a
public authority during an official inquiry.
11.2. There is another aspect of the matter. The statements
under Section 133 are clear and unequivocal admissions in writing
which were neither made in police custody nor retracted
subsequently nor can be termed as custodial confessions
inadmissible in evidence. They were rather made voluntarily,
though of course in response to a statutory requirement. Since the
intent and purpose of the provision contained in Section 133, ibid,
is not only to facilitate the conduct of investigation / prosecution
under criminal law qua offences which may be attracted under
Indian Penal Code (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita), but also to determine
the pecuniary consequences for determining the liability of
compensation under Motor Vehicle Act, hence, either way, the
legal presumption favors the truthfulness of the disclosures made
under Section 133 unless convincingly proven otherwise by cogent
evidence.
11.3. Besides the driver / owner, for giving false information
admissible as evidence, if it were so, to the public authority (police
official) under Section 133 supra can also be held liable for penal
consequences under criminal law. In given cases, at the instance
of competent court or public authority, as the case may be,
prosecution can be initiated under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal
Code (see Section 191 IPC / Section 227 BNS – Giving false
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (11 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
evidence; Section 192 IPC / Section 228 BNS – Fabricating false
evidence; Section 193 IPC / Section 229 BNS – Punishment for
false evidence in judicial proceedings or Section 200 IPC / Section
236 BNS – Using false declaration in evidence).
11.4. Moreover, Insurance company-Respondent No.3 itself relied
upon and produced the said admissions of driver/owner made
under section 133. In these circumstances, when respondent No.3
itself has relied upon and produced them, I am of the view that
the same also could and ought to have been taken into
consideration by the learned Tribunal for determining the question
of involvement of the vehicle in question and it’s driver respondent
No.2 in the accident. However, the learned Tribunal committed a
grave error in overlooking the same.
12. Furthermore, deposition of Mohsin, the eye-witness of the
accident, is to the effect that both the victims/deceased men were
proceeding on the motor cycle ahead of the offending vehicle
Tavera vehicle No. RJ-01-UA-0280 driven by Balveer Singh when it
had hit their motor cycle from behind. However, the learned
Tribunal observed that he (Mohsin) was illiterate and it was
improbable that he could read and recall the exact number of the
Tavera and obtain the driver’s name at the scene, if the vehicle
had fled after the incident. In this connection, it is pertinent to
note that the original statement of Mohsin available on the file of
the learned Tribunal bears his signature fairly well written in Hindi
Devnagri script. Having first said that he was illiterate, in further
cross-examination on behalf of respondent No.3, this witness also
stated that on the day next after the incident, he had read in the
newspaper about the accident and gone to the police station. He
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (12 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
was not cross-examined to shake his specific testimony to the
effect that he had seen the accident taking place and at that time,
Balveer Singh was driving the offending vehicle and that on the
day next after the incident, he had read in the newspaper about
the accident and gone to the police station. This shows an
admission of it’s correctness on the part of respondent No.3. It
seems that either because of having no formal certificate of his
educational qualifications and/or out of sheer modesty, Mohsin
stated in a general way that he was illiterate, even though was
capable enough of reading and writing. It cannot thus be said that
he was incapable of reading and recalling the exact number of the
offending Tavera vehicle. In other words, he was fairly capable of
the same. This clearly contradicts the Tribunal’s assumption of his
illiteracy. His ability to recall and narrate details of the accident,
including the vehicle number and the driver’s identity, remains
unimpeached and was not effectively challenged in cross-
examination. The learned Tribunal thus erred in disbelieving the
testimony of the eyewitness Mohsin by casting doubt on his
literacy and capability to recall the vehicle number and identify the
driver.
12.1. Having seen respondent No. 2 driving the vehicle at the
time of accident, obviously, the eye-witness (Mohsin) could have
identified him as the driver of offending vehicle.
13. In any case, the responses of respondents No. 1 and 2
Bhagwan Singh owner and Balveer Singh driver, respectively
clinch the matter and clearly show that Tavera vehicle No. RJ-01-
UA-0280 was actually involved in the accident and at that time, it
was being driven by respondent No.2 Balveer Singh. Even
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (13 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
otherwise, the so-called infirmities noted by the learned Tribunal
in the testimony of eye-witness Mohsin are inconsequential in view
of the other clinching material on record showing that the
offending vehicle was involved in the accident and at that time, it
was being driven by respondent No. 2.
14. The learned Tribunal noted that the written report (Exhibit-4)
registered on the same day by Karim Khan and Prabhu Singh, it
states that an unknown heavy vehicle ran over the deceased,
causing their immediate death. It also mentions tire marks of a
heavy vehicle over the bodies. Lay persons, particularly those not
well-educated and from rural areas are seldom aware of the
distinctions and classification of vehicles contained in the Motor
Vehicles Act. They are quite likely to go by the height, size and
dimensions of the vehicle, while describing it as heavy or light
one. True, under the Motor Vehicle Act, Tavera vehicle is classified
as light motor vehicle. However, the fact remains that it’s height is
more and the size and other dimensions are considerably bigger
than cars and several other passenger four wheelers classified as
light vehicles. Merely, because the written report (Exhibit-4)
registered by Karim Khan and Prabhu Singh states that an
unknown heavy vehicle ran over the bodies of deceased, causing
their immediate death does not, in my opinion, negate the
aforesaid other reliable evidence/ material on record showing that
offending Tavera vehicle was involved in the accident.
15. In my opinion, the evidence led by the claimant-appellants
and the aforesaid other material on record in support of the
appellants’ claim were unfairly discarded by the learned Tribunal
on mere conjectures and surmises while holding that the offending
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (14 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
vehicle was falsely implicated in order to claim compensation for
the incident.
16. Hitting of the offending vehicle(Tavera No. RJ-01-UA-0280)
into the two-wheeler from behind by itself shows it’s rash and
negligent driving by respondent No.2.
17. Contesting respondent No. 3 did not lead any evidence to
rebut the aforesaid evidence led by the claimant-appellants.
Respondents No. 2 and 3 remained ex-parte.
18. As a result of the above discussion, in my opinion, the
learned Tribunal grossly erred in disbelieving the testimony of
Mohsin, which shows that the offending vehicle Tavera vehicle No.
RJ-01-UA-0280 driven by Balveer Singh when it had hit their
motor cycle from behind. Resultantly, the finding recorded by the
learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is reversed. It is held that the
offending vehicle Tavera vehicle No. RJ-01-UA-0280 was involved
in the accident and it’s rash and negligent driving by respondent
No. 2 caused the accident leading to the death of Sadiq Khan and
Narayan Singh.
19. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition only by
recording it’s findings on issue No. 1. It did not record any finding
on the aforesaid remaining issues framed in the case.
20. In the fitness of things, therefore, the impugned
judgment/award dated 29.01.2019 is set aside, the case is
remanded to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran,
District Pali with direction to proceed further, record it’s findings on
the remaining issues also and pass fresh award in accordance with
law.
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22235] (15 of 15) [CMA-1157/2019]
21. Parties shall cause appearance before the learned Tribunal on
07.07.2025. Registry to ensure timely return of the record of the
learned Tribunal to it.
22. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
169-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 09:40:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link