[2025:RJ-JP:19880] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 633/2006 1. Smt. Maina Devi w/o Late Shri Nand Ram, aged 30 years 2. Naresh s/o Late Shri Nand Ram aged 10 years 3. Bablu s/o Late Shri Nand Ram aged 7 years 4. Kumari Pooja d/o late Shri Nand Ram aged 5 years 5. Govind s/o Late Shri Nand Ram aged 2 years Claimants No.2 to 5 are minor through their natural guardian/ mother Smt. Maina Devi widow of Nand Ram. All r/o village Dei (Nainwa) Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi & Vil- lage Madrampura Diggi Road, Sanganer, Jaipur ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Anni Lal s/o Shri Dama Ram, r/o village Jaggannathpura, Post Office Madrampura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 2. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/05/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the order dated 17.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as "learned Court below"), titled as "Smt. Maina Devi & Ors. Vs. Anni Lal & Anr." in Claim Case No.641/2005, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:19880] (2 of 4) [CMA-633/2006] 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 09.06.2003, the deceased was travelling as a Labourer in a Truck Bearing Registration No.RJ-14-5291 near Sitapura and due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck on a curve, the deceased fell down from the Truck and died on 11.06.2003. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 34 years old and working as a Labourer, earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month. 3. The said claim was contested by the respondent No.1-Anni Lal, by filing reply to the claim petition, wherein he denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim. 4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company also filed a reply, wherein denied the averments of the claim, pleading violation of the policy and praying for rejection of the claim. 5. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant examined AW.1-Smt. Maina Devi, AW.2- Daulat Singh and exhibited certain documents. The opposite parties did not present any evidence in rebuttal. 6. That after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned MACT dismissed the claim of the appellants on the ground that the deceased Nandram was neither Labourer nor falls within the purview of a third party. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that from the uncontroverted evidence of the appellants, it is well proved that the deceased was travelling as a Labourer in the Truck, therefore, impugned finding are perverse and deserves to be set aside. He further submits that the present appeal may be allowed and the [2025:RJ-JP:19880] (3 of 4) [CMA-633/2006] matter may be remanded back to the learned MACT to determine the compensation. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Jain, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposed these arguments. He submitted that the impugned order is based on a correct appreci- ation of facts and law. He further submits that there was a delay of three days' in lodging the FIR. Accordingly, he prayed for dis- missal of the appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the material available on record. 10. That from the uncontroverted evidence of AW.1-Maina Devi and AW.2-Daulat Singh, it proved that the deceased Nandram was a Labourer on the Truck and accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck Driver. 11. That apart from above evidence i.e. the cover note Ex-9, it is evident that the risk of driver, Khallasi and third party is covered under the insurance policy and in the present case, since the deceased was a labourer over the Truck, therefore, it cannot be said that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 12. That the finding recorded by the learned MACT that the deceased Nandram cannot be considered as labour is contrary to evidence available on record. Further the finding of the learned MACT that the deceased does not fall within the definition of third party is absolutely perverse, therefore, aforesaid finding is hereby set aside and reversed and the deceased is held to be a Labourer over the Truck. [2025:RJ-JP:19880] (4 of 4) [CMA-633/2006] 13. That in view of the above discussion, the findings recorded by the learned MACT qua Issue No.1 is set aside and reversed being contrary to evidence available on record. 14. That since the claim petition has been dismissed merely on the basis of erroneous findings recorded under Issue No.1, without considering the other issues so framed, therefore, the present matter is remitted back to the learned MACT to re-decide the case on merits. 15. Accordingly, the present miscellaneous appeal preferred by the appellants is allowed and impugned order dated 17.08.2005 is set aside. Consequent thereto the matter is remanded back to the learned MACT to decide the case afresh on merits in accordance with law. 16. The parties are directed to remain present before the concerned MACT on 15.07.2025. 17. Record of the learned Court below be sent back. 18. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/41 Whether Reportable : Yes/No