Dismissed

Ramu Ram v. Ganpat Ram and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Jul 2024CMA/1562/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against the Tribunal's dismissal of motor accident claims. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding the Tribunal correctly held that appellants failed to examine treating doctors or produce original medical bills, and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment dismissing the claim petitions is upheld; appeals dismissed. No costs.

Ramu Ram Vs Ganpat Ram and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28743]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1563/2005

¶4

Than Singh S/o Phool Singh, age 54 years, Resident of Village Chak-Khardia, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagour.

¶5

----Appellant/Claimant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ganpat Ram S/o Hanuman Ram, Resident of Ahiron-kaBas, Sudarsan, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagour.

¶8

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. New Delhi, Branch Office Nagour.

¶9

----Respondents/Non-Claimants

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1562/2005

¶12

Ramu Ram S/o Lichman Ram, age 49 years, Resident of Village Chak-Khardia, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagour.

¶13

----Appellant/Claimant

¶14

Versus

¶15

Ganpat Ram S/o Hanuman Ram, Resident of Ahiron-kaBas, Sudarsan, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagour.

¶16

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. New Delhi, Branch Office Nagour.

¶17

	----Respondents/Non-Claimants
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. C.R. Jakhar.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi,R-2.

¶18

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶19

Judgment

¶20

15/07/2024

¶21

These misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment dated 03.09.2005 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Didwana, District Nagaur (for brevity, hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Cases

[2024:RJ-JD:28743]

[CMA-1563/2005]

(2 of 5)

No.16/2003 and 17/2003 respectively, wherein claim petitions filed by the appellants/claimants have been rejected.

¶26

The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are that the appellants/claimants filed claim petitions on 01.07.2003 claiming compensation of Rs.99,000/- and Rs.90,000/- respectively for the injuries suffered by them and damages alleging therein that on 13.12.2002 appellants were coming from village Sanglia to Chak-Khardia by their camel carts loaded with fodder in the carts. At about 08:30 pm, whey they reached outside village Sudrasan, a jeep bearing registration number RJ-21-C-1081, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the camel carts from back side. In the said accident, camel carts damaged and the fodder loaded in the camel carts scattered on the road. The appellants/claimants and their camels also sustained injuries. An FIR of the accident was lodged at Police Station Molsar. In the said accident, the driver of the offending jeep also died.

¶27

The learned Tribunal after registering the claim petitions issued summons to the non-claimants and despite being served, nobody put in appearance on behalf of non-claimant No.1/owner of the offending vehicle. After service of the summons, on behalf of non-claimant No.2- Insurance Company reply to claim petition was filed while refuting the claim made by the claimants and prayer for rejecting the claim petitions was made.

¶28

Thereafter, as per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to frame four issues including relief. In support of their claim, the claimants examined themselves and one Babulal. In documentary evidence, the claimants exhibited various

[2024:RJ-JD:28743]

[CMA-1563/2005]

(3 of 5)

documents. Since on behalf of non-claimant/owner of the vehicle nobody appeared, exparte proceedings were drawn.

¶33

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the respective parties, vide its judgment dated 03.09.2005 proceeded to dismiss the claim petitions filed by the appellants/claimants. 6. The appellants/claimants thus have filed these appeals challenging the judgment impugned. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the jeep, inasmuch as there were no reflected on the camel cart. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a perusal of the site inspection note would reveal that the road was 18’ wide, and the accident had taken place on left corner of the road, thus there was no negligence on the part of claimants, however, the said aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the driver of the jeep hit the camel carts from back side as a result of which camel cart overturned and occupants of the carts fell down and sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also erred in holding that the claimants have not sustained any injury, whereas documentary evidence was led in this regard by the appellants, which has been discarded by the learned Tribunal without there being any justifiable basis. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that reflectors were very much pasted on the camel carts, however,

[2024:RJ-JD:28743]

[CMA-1563/2005]

(4 of 5)

without there being any rebuttal, the same has not been taken into consideration while deciding the claim petitions.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted the camel also sustained injuries and their camel carts also got damaged, however, no compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and the evidence led by the appellants has not at all been considered by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants thus prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal may be quashed and claim petitions may be allowed, as prayed for.

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/non-claimant, Insurance Company submits that the appellants/claimants have not produced any cogent convincing material to support their claims, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petitions. 10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal, after considering the material placed before it, has rightly rejected the claim petitions filed by the appellants/claimants. The learned Tribunal was justified in arriving at the finding that the claimants have not examined the treating doctor, who prepared the injury reports and attended them and further original medical bills were not produced instead photostat copies of the same were produced, which were not admissible in evidence. This Court also finds that the appellants/claimants have exhibited voucher to prove amount paid for repairing of the camel carts, however, since there was no

[2024:RJ-JD:28743]

[CMA-1563/2005]

(5 of 5)

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending jeep, the learned Tribunal has rightly denied any claim to the claimants.

¶44

This Court also finds that in the accident on account of nonpasting of the reflector on the camel carts, the driver of the jeep, could not see the camel carts and despite applying break diligently, it hit the carts, as a result of which the driver of the jeep lost his life. The learned Tribunal has also found that the at the time of accident, the driver of the jeep was having valid and effective licence and was plying the vehicle under the instructions of the owner. Thus, the issues framed were rightly decided against the appellants/claimants.

¶45

In view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in the misc. appeals. The appeals are therefore, dismissed. No costs. Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶46

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶47

109 & 110-DJ/-

Ramu Ram v. Ganpat Ram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Ram v. Ganpat Ram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs of Lacchi Ram Vs Firm M/S .Mahesh Kumar Manoj Kumar

United India Insurance Company Vs Smt. Jamna Devi and Ors.

Sita Ram Vs Rameshwar Lal and Ors.

Asha Ram Vs Achala Ram and Anr.

Shivratan and Ors. Vs Madho Singh and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nandram and Ors.