Allowed

Bihari Lal v. Nathu Singh

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2023CMA/634/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur allowed two civil miscellaneous appeals filed by claimants against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's rejection of their compensation petitions. The Tribunal had dismissed claims due to the injured witness failing to recall the jeep's registration number. The High Court observed that this overlooked the police charge-sheet confirming the incident, violatin

What did the court decide?

Civil miscellaneous appeals allowed; impugned judgment and award quashed and set aside; matter remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all parties.

Bihari Lal Vs Nathu Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32554]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 805/2003

¶4

Jagga S/o Pratap Ji, resident of Maniya, Post Sadri, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Nathu Singh S/o Sh. Gokul Singh Rajput (Daroga), resident of Phiyawadi, P.S. Kuwariya, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 634/2003

¶11

Bihari Lal S/o Ukar

¶12

Smt. Mathri W/o Bhihari Lal

¶13

Smt. Kamla W/o Gorulal

¶14

Sh. Krishan Chand S/o Gorulal

¶15

Chhotu S/o Gorulal

¶16

Prakash S/o Gorulal

¶17

Surendra S/o Gorulal

¶18

Gopal S/o Gorulal

¶19

Ms Shanta D/o Gorulal

¶20

Manju D/o Goru Lal

¶21

appellants nos.5-10 are minor through appellant No.1, their mother all resident of Amartalai, Maha Satiyo Ki Madri, Tehsil & District Rajsamand

¶22

----Appellant

¶23

Versus

¶24

Nathu Singh S/o Gokal Singh Rajput (Daroga), resident of Phiyawadi, PS Kuwariya, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand

¶25

----Respondent

¶26

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Sandeep Saruparia Mr. Nikhil Ajmera
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. Assisted by
		Mr. Dhanesh Sarswat

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

[2023:RJ-JD:32554]

[CMA-805/2003]

(2 of 5)

DATE OF JUDGMENT

04/10/2023

Both present civil misc. appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been preferred by the claimantsappellants against the judgment and award dated 10.7.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal for short) in MACT Case Nos.52/2001 and 51/2001 whereby the learned tribunal has rejected the claim petitions of the claimantsappellants.

¶35

The facts as stated in the claim petition are that on 5.7.2000, when the deceased Gorulal alongwith Jagga were going on their motorcycle, when a jeep bearing no.RJ30-C-0134 which was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle from behind, resulting in death of Gorulal during treatment and injuries to Jagga. The legal representativesclaimants of Gorulal preferred a claim petition no.51/2001 claiming total compensation to the tune of Rs.24,66,000/- and the injured claimant Jagga also preferred a claim petition no.52/2001 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.13,62,000/-.

¶36

The driver/owner of the jeep submitted reply to the claim petition wherein it was stated that three persons were riding over the motorcycle and they were intoxicated and when the jeep was parked, they hit the jeep.

¶37

(3 of 5) [CMA-805/2003]

¶38

[2023:RJ-JD:32554]

¶39

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed 3 issues and the respective parties led their evidence.

¶40

After completion of the evidence, the learned tribunal heard the arguments and rejected the claim petitions on the ground that the injured in his statement and cross-examination could not mention the jeep number.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants submits that in the present case, the deceased died due to the accident which occurred on 5.7.2000 and the claimant Jagga also suffered injuries and the jeep in question was involved in the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that after investigation, the investigating agency found that the jeep was involved in the accident and the investigating agency filed chargesheet against the driver of the jeep for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC. It is also submitted that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the jeep and the claimant Jagga received injuries and the investigating agency filed charge-sheet against the driver/owner of the jeep, copy of which was exhibited before the learned tribunal. It is submitted that the police authorities during investigation prepared documents and after investigation police filed charge-sheet and the same is admissible in evidence, but the learned tribunal has disbelieved the same.

(4 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:32554]

[CMA-805/2003]

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is well reasoned and no interference is called for.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶47

I have perused the material available on record. From perusal of the same, it is clear that the investigating agency found that there was negligence on part of the driver of the jeep. The learned tribunal, only on the basis of statements of the injured witness wherein he could not mention/recall the registration number of the offending jeep, held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep, whereas the learned tribunal ought to have considered the charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency wherein the investigating agency found that it is the driver of the offending jeep who was negligent.

¶48

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr Vs. Vatschala UttamMore (Smt.) reported in (1991) 3 SCC 530 held as under:

¶49

“It is thus evident that section 92-A was in the nature of a beneficial legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious payment of a limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no fault liability. In the matter of interpretation of a beneficial legislation the approach of the courts is to adopt a con- struction which advances the beneficient purpose underlying the enactment in preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose. The same approach has been adopted by this Court while construing the provisions of the Act. See: Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi & Ors., [1982] 1 SCR 860 and Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors., [1987] 2 SCR 752.”

[2023:RJ-JD:32554]

[CMA-805/2003]

(5 of 5)

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, the provisions thereof have to be given beneficial meaning and effect. The benefit under the Act cannot be taken away on technical aspects. In view of the above, this count finds that it is a fit case for remand.

¶54

Accordingly, the civil misc. appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 10.7.2002 passed by the learned tribunal in MACT Case Nos.51/2001 and 52/2001 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned tribunal to decide the same afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties in accordance with law.

¶55

All the parties are directed to appear before the learned tribunal on 2.11.2023.

¶56

Office is directed to send the copy of this order as well as record forthwith.

¶57

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶58

7-CPGoyal/-

Bihari Lal v. Nathu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bihari Lal v. Nathu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Smt. Sharda Devi and Ors.

Ghishi Bai Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

A.C.T.O. Vs M/S Sunil Trading Company

Mukesh Prajapat Vs Sapna Prajapat

Mohan Singh Vs National Insurance Company Limited