Dismissed

Ranjeet and Ors. v. Abdul Kayam and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2018CMA/1385/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Court dismissed an S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition for the death of Ramkaran. The appeal was dismissed as appellants failed to prove liability.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellants.

Ranjeet and Ors. Vs Abdul Kayam and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1385/2008

¶3

Ranjeet S/o Ram Karan Jat, aged 21 years

¶4

Kalu S/o Ram Karan Jat, aged 19 years

¶5

Both resident of Jiwanpur, Tehsil Sarwad, District Ajmer.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Abdul Kayam Neb S/o Bashir Khan Neb, by caste Muslim, R/o, Bada Mohalla, Sarwad, District Ajmer.

¶9

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Managing Director, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur registered owner Roadways Bus No.RJ-10P-1415 Sardar Sahar, at Ajaymeru Depot, Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Jain Adv. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vinod Tyagi Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

02/07/2018

¶15

Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 11.12.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been successful in proving their case. However, Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants.

¶17

Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal.

¶18

Appellants had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of

¶19

[CMA-1385/2008]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

death of Ramkaran in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 13.06.2006. On the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed Issue No.1 to the effect as to whether Ramkaran had died on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Abdul Kayam Neb while driving the bus bearing No.RJ-10P-1415 at about 9.45 A.M. In order to prove this issue, appellants were required to examine the eye witness/witnesses, who had witnessed the accident.

¶22

Appellant No.1 appeared in the witness box as AW-2. However, the said witness was not present at the time of accident, and thus, had not witnessed the accident.

¶23

Claimants had examined AW-2 Kalu to depose with regard to the manner of accident and prove Issue No.1. However, the said witness was, although, examined-in-chief, but was not produced for cross-examination. In these circumstances, Tribunal rightly held that statement of AW-2 could not be read in evidence.

¶24

On the other hand, respondents had examined passengers travelling in the bus in question and the said witnesses had stated that no accident as alleged had taken place. The driver of the offending bus (respondent No.1) had also appeared in the witness box and had deposed that no accident as alleged had taken place.

¶25

Although, in the present case, FIR was registered against respondent No.1, but appellants were required to lead evidence and produce AW-2 for cross-examination in order to establish Issue No.1.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, Tribunal had rightly decided Issue No.1 against the appellants and had thus, rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants as they had failed to establish that Ramkaran had died on account of

¶27

[CMA-1385/2008]

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving the offending bus.

¶30

Dismissed.

¶31

(SABINA),J

¶32

S.Kumawat/D-8

Ranjeet and Ors. v. Abdul Kayam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet and Ors. v. Abdul Kayam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navneet Singh @ Naveen Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mahendra @ Bulya Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajid and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Deepak Kumar Pandey and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Smt Sharda and Ors.

Bhagwati Devi Vs Ramlal and Ors.