HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No v. Sita Ram S/o Ramniwas, R/o Mahrawata Tractor

: Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. L. Verma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appel- lants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 19.03.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Acci- dent Claims Tribunal, Baran (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned MACT/Tribunal'), in Motor Accident Claims Case No.60/2000, titled as "Ghanshyam & Anr. Vs. Sita Ram & Ors.", whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants.

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

18.05.2000, the claimants/appellants' daughter, Shakuntala, was returning from a wedding in a tractor, bearing registration No.RJ- 20R-6428, along with a trolley. When they reached near Balaji Rice Mill, Kota-Baran, the tractor driver drove the same at a high [2025:RJ-JP:24924] (2 of 6) [CMA-916/2004] speed in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the trolly jumped and the deceased- Shakuntala fell from the trolley and sustained grievous head injuries. Later, she succumbed to her in- juries on 22.05.2000. Consequently, the claimants/appellants filed the claim petition seeking just compensation, considering the age of the deceased- Shakuntala to be 17 years and income as Rs. 1,500/- per month.

3. Non-claimants/respondents No.1 (Sita Ram, driver of the tractor) and No.2 (Ram Niwas, owner of the tractor) filed a joint reply, wherein, they denied the averments made by the claimants/appellants in the claim petition. They submitted that an FIR regarding the incident was lodged and did not deny that the deceased Shakuntala sustained injuries in the said accident. How- ever, they denied that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver and instead, contended that it was the result of the deceased’s own negligence. They further submitted that since the vehicle in question was insured with an Insurance Company, the li- ability to pay compensation (if any) should be fastened upon the Insurance Company, and prayed for the dismissal of the claim pe- tition against them.

4. Non-claimant/respondent No.3 (Insurance Company), also filed a reply to the claim petition, wherein, the Insurance Company denied the averments made by the claimants/appellants and submitted that in view of the fact that the deceased was traveling as passengers in the tractor trolly in violation of the policy conditions and that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license, the claim petition should [2025:RJ-JP:24924] (3 of 6) [CMA-916/2004] be rejected qua the Insurance Company, as the Insurance Com- pany is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants/appel- lants.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tri- bunal framed as many as four issues.

6. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim petition, the claimants/appellants examined Ghanshyam (father of the deceased as AW-1) and produced certain documents which included the FIR (Ex-1), Charge-sheet (Ex-2), Site Plan (Ex- 3), Cover Note (Ex-4), Post-mortem Report (Ex-5), RC of Tractor (Ex-6), Driving License of respondent No.1 (Ex-7) and others.

7. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company examined Ram Prasad Meena (NAW-1), Assistant Administrative Officer, but did not produce any documentary evidence in support of its plea.

8. After hearing arguments of the learned counsels for both parties and deciding Issue No.1 against the claimants/appellants, and accordingly the learned MACT dismissed the claim petition vide judgment/award dated 19.03.2004.

9. Being aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal below committed a serious error in dismissing the claim petition by deciding Issue No.1 against the claimants/ appellants. He further submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal, that the claimants/appellants failed to prove the negli- gence of the Tractor Driver, is per se illegal and contrary to the [2025:RJ-JP:24924] (4 of 6) [CMA-916/2004] documentary evidences produced by the claimant/appellants, specifically the FIR (Ex-1) and Charge-sheet (Ex-2). The said evi- dences clearly established that the Tractor Driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of the deceased. He further submitted that since a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that negligence of the driver was not established, in support of the same, he relied on the judg- ment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr, (Special Leave to Ap- peal (C) No.10351/2019, decided on 25.02.2025. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and matter may kindly be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and supported the impugned award. He submitted that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and the law. He further submitted that the impugned order is perfectly just and proper, and in view of the violation of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal, after a careful examination of the pleadings and relevant law, rightly passed the impugned award, dismissing the claim petition. Therefore, he submitted that no interference by this Court is required and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:24924] (5 of 6) [CMA-916/2004]

12. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. From a perusal of record, it is evident that the negligence of the Tractor-Driver was not established by the learned Tribunal, leading to decide Issue No.1 against the claimants/appellants. However, it is clearly reflected that the claimants/appellants, in or- der to prove the factum of negligence of the Tractor-Driver, pro- duced documents such as the FIR (Ex-1) and Charge-sheet (Ex-2).

14. From a perusal of the charge-sheet (Ex-2), it is evident that the police, after due investigation of the case, filed a charge-sheet under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the driver of the vehicle.

15. Furthermore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ranjeet & Anr. (supra) has held that: "it is settled in law that once a charge-sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the vehicle was being negli- gently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye witnesses are not exam- ined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to the negligence of the bus driver."

16. A bare perusal of the record reflects that in the present case, on account of the said negligent and rash driving, the deceased fell out of the tractor/trolly, sustained injuries and later on died. Thus, from the record of the case, it is evident that the deceased [2025:RJ-JP:24924] (6 of 6) [CMA-916/2004] sustained injuries due to the negligence of the Tractor-Driver. The finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to Issue No.1 is con- trary to the documentary evidence Ex-1 and Ex-2 in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supeme Court in the matter of Ranjeet & Anr.(supra). Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Tri- bunal qua Issue No.1 is unsustainable in the eyes of the law, and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

17. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for afresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the respec- tive parties, to lead additional evidence, if so desired.

18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the case afresh and looking to the fact of the accident occurred on

18.05.2000, the learned Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition preferably within six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order/certified copy. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned learned Tribunal, Baran on 04.08.2025.

19. The record of the learned Court below be sent back immediately.

20. There shall be no order as to costs.

21. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Seema/48 (MANEESH SHARMA),J