Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Claimant/ v. Sultan S/o

Judgment

1. Sultan S/o Shri Ghisa Ram, R/o Chanwara, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Driver Jeep No.RJ-18C-0843)

2. Banwari Lal Saini S/o Manaram Saini, R/o Ponkh, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Registered Owner)

3. National Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Station Road Jhunjhunu Tehsil & District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Vipul Jaiman For Respondent(s) : Dr. Vikram Singh Nain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 09/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.3), Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned Tribunal') in Civil Misc. (MAC Case) No.149/2005 (77/2006), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

17.12.2004 the claimant/appellant was going to Chavra from Gudha Gorji on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. GJ-7N- 3009 and when he reached near Johadi Bhenslani at Chavra near [2025:RJ-JP:25284] (2 of 5) [CMA-500/2007] the fields of Kishan Singh and Nandram Saini, a Jeep, bearing registration No. RJ-18C-0843 driven by non-claimant/respondent No.1 came at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle of the claimant/appellant as a result of which the claimant/appellant had sustained grievous injuries.

3. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition and prayed for awarding of just compensation.

4. After service of the notice upon non-claimants/respondents, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments of accident and submitted that the claimant/appellant has filed a false claim petition just to get the compensation, therefore, the claim petition may be rejected.

5. The Non-claimant/respondent No.3- Insurance Company also filed reply to the claim petition, wherein they have denied the averments made in the claim petition including the involvement of the vehicle and submitted that the jeep, bearing registration No. RJ-18C-0843, was insured by the Insurance Company from

27.07.2004 to 26.07.2005 in favour of Banwari Lal (owner of the vehicle in question). It is also submitted that the claimant/appellant has claimed the inflated amount, therefore, prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, on 24.11.2005 learned Tribunal framed five issues.

7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant examined AW-1 Mahaveer Prasad Saini, AW-2 Jitendra, AW-3 Madanlal and produced the documents Ex.1 to Ex.38 as Ex.1 Charge-sheet, Ex.2 FIR, Ex.3 Site Map, Ex.4 [2025:RJ-JP:25284] (3 of 5) [CMA-500/2007] Inspection Report Motorcycle, Ex.5 Seizure Memo Jeep, Ex.6 Seizure Memo Papers Jeep RJ-18C-0843, Ex.7 Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ex.8 Mechanical Report, Ex.9 R.C., Ex.10 Insurance Cover Note Ex.11 D.L. and other documents mark from Ex.12 to Ex.38.

8. In rebuttal, the non-claimants/respondents examined NAW-1 Sultan, NAW-2 Banwarilal Saini, NAW-3 Tejaram and NAW-4 Jagdish Chandra Kapoor.

9. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal, by deciding issue No.1 against the claimant/appellant, dismissed the claim petition.

10. Being aggrieved of which, the claimant/appellant preferred this present appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that from the FIR (Ex.1), and from injury report (Ex.37) and permanent disability certificate (Ex.36), it is well established that the claimant/appellant has sustained injuries due to the said accident. Despite the same, the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition, therefore, the impugned award may be set aside and matter may be remanded for determination of just and fair compensation.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for non-claimant/respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions and submits that according to the claim petition, the accident was occurred on

17.12.2004 and the FIR was lodged after delay of two months on

20.02.2005 at P.S. Gudha. He further submits that the injury report and discharge ticket, so produced, does not inspire confidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed [2025:RJ-JP:25284] (4 of 5) [CMA-500/2007] the claim petition and there is no infirmity in the impugned order which calls for any interference by this Court.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions.

14. From bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the claimant/appellant has pleaded the fact that the accident was occurred on 17.12.2004 whereas the FIR (Ex.2) was lodged on

20.02.2005 at P.S. Gudha after delay of more than two months and no proper explanation has been given for such inordinate delay. From the record, it is also revealed that the alleged mechanical inspection report (Ex.8) was prepared at Jhunjhunu on

29.03.2005, wherein it was found that the vehicle was not damaged, however, minor scratches were found on the vehicle. Even as per the discharge slip (Ex.26), the discharge was given on the request of the claimant/appellant himself, wherein it was not mentioned that the injuries were sustained due to the accident, further, neither x-ray nor injury report of Sikar was produced, further the claimant/appellant and owner of the vehicle were relatives. Thus, all the facts in entirety, casts serious doubt about the fact that the claimant/appellant suffered injury in the said accident.

15. From bare perusal of all these documents, it is prima facie established that the claimant/appellant has failed to prove the fact that the injuries sustained by him were a result of the road accident dated 17.12.2004. Even other documents produced by the claimant/appellant do not support his case.

16. From bare perusal of the findings recorded by learned Tribunal, it is clear that the claimant/appellant has failed to prove [2025:RJ-JP:25284] (5 of 5) [CMA-500/2007] the averments of the claim petition, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition, further, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

17. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

18. All the pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

19. Record of the Court below be sent back immediately. DEEPA-64 (MANEESH SHARMA),J