Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Meera on 21 July, 2020
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1215/2020
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Office
- Fort Road, Nagaur Through Tp Hub Incharge, 74-A Bhati N
Plaza, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Alto Car No. Rj-14-8-C-
5092)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Meera W/o Late Kherajram, Aged About 50 Years, B/c
Jaat, R/o Untvaliya Tehsil Nagaur Presently R/o Veer Teja
Colony, Near Fci Godown Nagaur Tehsil And District
Nagaur (Raj.)
2. Om Prakash S/o Late Kherajram, Aged About 31 Years,
B/c Jaat, R/o Untvaliya Tehsil Nagaur Presently R/o Veer
Teja Colony, Near Fci Godown Nagaur Tehsil And District
Nagaur (Raj.)
3. Vimlesh D/o Late Kherajram, Aged About 27 Years, B/c
Jaat, R/o Untvaliya Tehsil Nagaur Presently R/o Veer Teja
Colony, Near Fci Godown Nagaur Tehsil And District
Nagaur (Raj.)
4. Phushi W/o Late Durgaram, Aged About 71 Years, B/c
Jaat, R/o Untvaliya Tehsil Nagaur Presently R/o Veer Teja
Colony, Near Fci Godown Nagaur Tehsil And District
Nagaur (Raj.)
5. Bhanwarlal S/o Kesaram, B/c Jaat, R/o Jhadeli Tehsil Jayal
District Nagaur (Raj.) (Driver Alto Car No. Rj-14-8C-
5092)
6. Nerain Bhatt S/o Brijesh Kumar, B/c Bhatt (Brahmin) ,
R/o 101, Indra Colony, Bani Park Jaipur. (Owner Alto Car
No. Rj-14-8C-5092)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal for
Mr. Anil Bachhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. LS Rathore
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:26:15 PM) (2 of 4) [CMA-1215/2020] 21/07/2020
1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matter in Court.
2. Appellant has preferred the present civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act for claiming the relief:-
"(a) The award dated 15.01.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Nagaur in claim case no.124/2017 titled Smt. Meera & Ors. Vs. Bhanwarlal & Ors.may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside.
(b) Any other order which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may passed in favour of the appellant. "
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally.
4. Brief facts, as noticed by this Court, are that on 30.04.2017 one Kherajram constable, while driving a motor-cycle, met with accident due to which he died after seven days of the incident. The FIR for the said incident was lodged on 02.05.2017 and the claim petition under Section 166/140 of the M.V. Act was filed on 24.08.2017 and award was granted on 15.01.2020.
5. Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal appearing for Mr. Anil Bachhawat, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Rojnamcha was written on 30.04.2017 at 10.29 P.M. which did not carry any details of the vehicle. The Rojnamcha did not carry the registration number or the type of the vehicle, while recording the information about the accident.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Rojnamcha was entered on the information of one Ramniwas, who is AW-3, and thus, ought to have carried the details of the vehicle, which were subsequently planted. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal while dealing with the evidence of AW-3 has not (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:26:15 PM) (3 of 4) [CMA-1215/2020] kept into consideration that the information available to him ought to have been recorded in the Rojnamcha and apparently it is a subsequent development that has taken place.
7. Mr. L.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the FIR was lodged immediately after the medical attention was given to the victim Kherajram Constable on 02.05.2017. It is also contended that the eye-wetness AW-3 Ramniwas was with the deceased in the Government hospital, and therefore, the slight delay of two days in lodging the FIR is justifiable.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the car in question was recovered from the site itself and the site map itself shows that after the accident, the car remained at the site of the accident and the police has recovered the same from the accident site itself.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that Rojnamcha does not consist of any facts, which will indicate that the Rojnamcha has been prepared at the instance of AW-3 Ramniwas. It is also contended that the oral information was given telephonically by someone, upon which the Rojnamcha was recorded but AW-3 Ramniwas had no role in it and AW-3 Ramniwas while getting the victim medical treatment remained with him, which caused a delay of two days in lodging the FIR.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent refutes any implantation, as the testimony of AW-3 Ramniwas was vary affirmative and clear.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that in Rojnamcha, it is nowhere indicated that it has been recorded at (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:26:15 PM) (4 of 4) [CMA-1215/2020] the instance of AW-3 Ramniwas. Further, this Court also takes a note of fact that it is on record that the car in question remained at the accident site and was recovered from the accident site itself. The testimony of AW-3 Ramniwas, as an eye-witness, who took the victim in the Government hospital for immediate medical attention has also been rightly dealt with by the learned Tribunal.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, no cause of interference in the present appeal is made out and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 41-sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:26:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)