High Court allowed an appeal dismissing a motor accident claim. The court held that claimants failed to prove rash and negligent driving as no eye-witness was examined before the Tribunal, denying the respondent the right to cross-examine.
Tribunal's award dated 19.06.2000 set aside; claim petition dismissed against claimants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1136/2000
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Rishipal Agrawal
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
10/07/2018
Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award passed by the Tribunal dated 19.06.2000, whereby claim petition filed by the claimants, was allowed.
(2 of 4) [CMA-1136/2000]
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal had erred in deciding Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants as the claimants had failed to examine any eye-witness to prove the said issue. Hence, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.
None has appeared on behalf of the claimants, despite service.
Claimants had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Hanshraj Sharma in the motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 18.01.1991. It was the case of the claimants that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of appellant No. 1 while driving the offending Bus.
On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal had framed Issue No. 1 to the effect as to whether Hanshraj Sharma had died due to motor vehicle accident, which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Trilok Singh while driving the offending Bus.
In order to prove Issue No.1 claimants had had examined AW-2 Dinesh Pareek. The said witness in his examination-in-chief deposed that he had been told that accident had occurred while Trilok Singh was reversing the vehicle. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was not present at the spot, at the time of accident and has further deposed as per the incident narrated to him by other persons. Thus, the said witness had not witnessed the occurrence.
It was necessary for the claimants to have proved that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of
(3 of 4)
[CMA-1136/2000]
appellant No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. Merely because challan had been presented in the criminal case, was not sufficient to decide Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. The driver of the offending vehicle could be acquitted in the criminal case. So far as the claim petition was concerned, the claimants were required to examine the eye-witness to establish the manner of accident. Opposite party would have got an an opportunity to crossexamine the eye-witness to test his testimony with regard to the manner of accident. In the absence of examination of the eyewitness before the Tribunal, the opposite party has been denied its valuable right to cross-examine the said witness and establish their own plea. In case it is to be held that there was no need to examine an eye-witness and the claim petition could be allowed merely on the basis of the documents attached with the challan in the criminal case, then there is no need even to issue notice to the opposite party and compensation could be granted merely on the filing of the claim petition alongwith challan papers. However, it cannot be done so. Before a claim petition could be allowed, the other party has to be heard. Claimants have to examine witnesses to prove the issues qua which onus is upon them. Other party gets a chance to cross-examine the witnesses and test the truthfulness of the said witnesses.
Since, in the present case claimants had failed to examine any eye-witness to prove Issue no. 1, the said issue was liable to be decided against the claimants.
Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is reversed and the said issue is decided against the claimants. In view of the
(4 of 4) [CMA-1136/2000]
finding on Issue No.1, the claim petition filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly appeal is allowed and the award 19.06.2000 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed.
(SABINA),J
Sudha/02
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimants discharged the onus of proving that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the appellant.
Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the claim petition without examination of an eye-witness by the claimants.
Trilok Singh
Jeevraj
Kaushalya Devi
Manmohan Sharma
Mukesh Sharma
New India Insurance Company Ltd.
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
