[2025:RJ-JP:26711] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3162/2006 Kundan S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, aged about 11 years (minor) through natural guardian father Mahaveer Prasad S/o Shri Sheonarayan, R/o Mohalla Bhuchahera, Town Kotputli, District Jaipur. ----Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Mahipal Singh S/o Suraj Bhan Singh, R/o Benethi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur. (Driver Jeep No. RJ-14P-7879) 2. Sadhuram S/o Murlidhi Kapuriya, R/o Surana, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur through power of attorney Mamraj Meena, S/o Richhpal Meena, R/o Indrada, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar (Rajasthan) (Owner Jeep No. RJ-14P-7879) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, through Regional Manager, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 17/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 21.06.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Kotputli, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in claim petition No.1207/2005 (345/2003) titled as (Kundan vs. Mahipal Singh & Ors.), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant has been dismissed with the direction to refund Rs.25,000/- paid under No Fault Liability, and further cost of litigation as Rs.3,000/- was also imposed in favour of the non-claimant/respondent No.3- Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company"). [2025:RJ-JP:26711] (2 of 4) [CMA-3162/2006] 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 28.10.2002, the claimant/appellant was travelling to Kotputli in Jeep bearing registration No. RJ-14P-7879, the said jeep rolled over the divider due to rash and negligent driving of non- claimant/respondent No.1 as a result of which the claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries and fracture. On account of said injuries and fracture, the claimant/appellant filed the claim petition for awarding just compensation. 3. The non-claimant/respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the accident occurred due to some mechanical mistake, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Insurance Company also filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the FIR with regard to the said accident was lodged after delay of four months. They further submitted that there was collusion between the claimants, driver and the owner of the vehicle, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed five (5) issues. 6. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant/appellant examined himself and produced Ex.1 to Ex.25 as documentary evidence. 7. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence. 8. After hearing arguments of the parties, learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition and held that the FIR was lodged after [2025:RJ-JP:26711] (3 of 4) [CMA-3162/2006] delay of four months and it is not proved that claimant suffered injuries in the accident, there was suspicion of collusion between the driver and owner of the vehicle with the claimant/appellant and investigation agency. It was also held that insured vehicle was falsely implanted to seek compensation, therefore, the claimant/appellant is not entitled to get any compensation, accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.3,000/-. 9. Being aggrieved of which, the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant at the outset fairly submits that identical appeals preferred against the same award has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the year 2016. 11. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 12. From bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the FIR was lodged with a delay of four months for which no explanation was given by the claimant/appellant. It is also revealed that there was suspicion of collusion between the driver and owner of the vehicle with the claimant/appellant. Further it has been held that insured vehicle was falsely implanted to seek compensation, therefore, the facts stated in the claim petition cannot be taken to be correct. Thus, the findings recorded in the impugned award do not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this Court does not [2025:RJ-JP:26711] (4 of 4) [CMA-3162/2006] find any ground to entertain the present appeal and interfere with the impugned award. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. 14. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-59