Dismissed

Amilal and Another v. Ranveer Singh and Others

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2024CMA/780/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appeal challenging dismissal of a death-in-motor-accident compensation claim for want of proof of the vehicle's involvement. The court found no credible eyewitness, delayed identification of the vehicle, and upheld the Tribunal's findings, dismissing the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amilal and Another Vs Ranveer Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:52658]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 780/2014

¶4

Amilal S/o Shri Harsukh Ram age about 47 years,

¶5

Devilal S/o Shri Amilal, age about 24 years,

¶6

Dharamveer S/o Amilal, age about 22 years,

¶7

All R/o Village Haripura, Police Station Surajgarh, Tehsil Chirawa, Jhunjhunu

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ranveer Singh S/o Shri Narain Singh, R/o Jakhod, Police Station Surajgarh, Tehsil Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, (Driver of Utility No.HR-20-E-5582)

¶11

Rajpal Singh S/o Shri Lalchand, R/o Ward No.3, Surajgarh Mandi, Tehsil Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, (Registered owner of Utility No. HR-20-E-5582)

¶12

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Station Road, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil & District Jhunjhunu (Insurance Co. of Utility No.HR-20-E-5582).

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Naveen Dhuvan
For Respondent(s)	:

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶16

Order

¶17

06/11/2024

¶18

Instant CMA is preferred by appellants-claimants after dismissal of MAC claim petition on 26.10.2013 by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jhunjhunu.

¶19

The claimants have filed a petition for seeking claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, and same was registered as MAC Case No.116/2013 (98/2009) and was dismissed by the Tribunal, as involvement of vehicle was not proved. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is sufficient evidence to consider

[2024:RJ-JP:52658]

[CMA-780/2014]

(2 of 3)

involvement of vehicle and also drawing a conclusion that the offending vehicle of respondents has caused an accident on 03.01.2009, which resulted into death of Sara Devi. He also submitted that the Tribunal has drawn a erroneous conclusion and same is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that the evidence of eye witness AW2 and admission by NAW1 also fortify his contentions.

¶24

Heard learning counsel for the appellants and perused the entire record. 4. On 03.01.2009, an FIR No.1/2009 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was registered at Police Station, Surajgarh, District, Jhunjhunu against unknown vehicle. This FIR was exhibited as Ex.1 by the claimants and in the report no one was named as eyewitness. According to PMR Ex.4, the death was due to injury sustained by deceased. Claimants have submitted Ex.8 seizure memo of offending vehicle, which was prepared on 18.02.2009, one and half month after the incident. A notice under Section 133 of MV Act was also served on 18.02.2009 and same was exhibited as Ex.10 and only on basis of involvement a charge-sheet has been filed against respondent no.1.

¶25

AW1 is one of the claimant and he is not an eye witness. AW2 has claimed that he has witnessed the incident but crossexamination clearly suggest that he appeared as witness at the request of Devilal (one of claimant). He further admitted that neither he provided any help to decease for taking hospital nor informed the police. The admission of AW2 further make it clear that police has recorded statement of this witness only after 10 days. AW2 further admitted that he is not literate enough to read

[2024:RJ-JP:52658]

[CMA-780/2014]

(3 of 3)

english but he can read english letter. NAW1 also appeared as a witness and denied the negligence but admitted involvement in cross-examination. He also admitted that neither he informed to owner of vehicle nor informed to the police. NAW2 appeared on behalf of insurance company and denied the involvement of vehicle.

¶30

A perusal of aforesaid circumstances clearly reflect that the vehicle was not identified for one and half month after the incident. The behaviour of AW2 is abnormal, therefore, he cannot treated as an eyewitness. The admission of NAW1 itself shows that he did not informed the incident to vehicle owner and same is sufficient to doubts his bona fides, as pointed out by the Tribunal.

¶31

Having considered the fact that the incident was occurred at 4:30 PM (broad daylight) and there was no eye witness in FIR which means no one has seen the offending vehicle and probably due to this, report was registered against unknown vehicle.

¶32

Having considered aforesaid, the Tribunal has not committed any error while dismissing the claim petition. The findings recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

¶33

In view of aforesaid, the instant CMA is hereby dismissed.

¶34

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶35

Arun/44

Amilal and Another v. Ranveer Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amilal and Another v. Ranveer Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohitash Singh Son of Bhagwana Ram, Vs Ramkaran Son of Mangtu Ram

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Sh. Kishan S/O Late Sh. Kundan

Mafi Dayalji Maharajn Devotee Ram Prasad S/O Ram Swaroop Meena, Vs Purushottam Das Chela Ramdayal Das Dadupanthi

Rajendra Kumar S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Gurjar S/O Gopal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jabbar Singh, Manager Vs Smt. Santosh Devi Wife of Late Shri Pratap