S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5356/2009. Case: Emami and Ors. Vs Nand Kishore Gupta and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court

Case NumberS.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5356/2009
CounselFor Appellant: Rajendra Arora, Adv. and For Respondents: J.R. Tantia, Adv.
JudgesDinesh Chandra Somani, J.
IssueMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 147, 149, 163A, 166, 167, 173
Judgement DateFebruary 07, 2017
CourtRajasthan High Court


Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants against the judgment dated 25.04.2009 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tizara, District Alwar, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 51/2008 Emami & Ors. versus Nand Kishore Gupta & Ors., whereby, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act, for lack of jurisdiction.

2. Background facts are that the claimant-appellants made the claim application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 with the averment that on 21.06.2007 at about 2-2.30 PM, the deceased Sahid was proceeding on tractor bearing No. RJ-02/R 5642 from Guwalda Mod (turn) to Tapukada in right direction at a controlled speed but suddenly the vehicle-tractor run over the stones on a road and became imbalanced, due to some technical fault in the vehicle and the deceased-Sahid came underneath the said vehicle. Sahid died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The claimants sought compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- while filing the claim petition with averment that the deceased-Sahid was 35 years of age and he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is also averred that at the relevant time, non-claimant/respondent No. 1 was registered owner of the tractor, non-claimant respondent No. 2 was Mukhtiyar Khas of the tractor and the vehicle was insured with non-claimant/respondent No. 3. It is also averred that an FIR bearing No. 182/2007 was lodged in Police Station Tapukada and after investigation police filed final report in the court having jurisdiction.

3. Non-claimant/respondent No. 1 & 2 filed reply of the claim petition, stating therein that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, therefore, claimants are not entitled for any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. Non-claimant/respondent No. 3 Insurance Company opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto, with usual objections and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. After completion of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. Claimants examined three witnesses. Non-claimants did not produce any evidence. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment while dismissing the claim...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT