[2025:RJ-JP:6660] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5553/2017 1. Smt. Prem Devi wife of Late Dhanna Ram, aged about 51 years, Resident of Budaniya, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 2. Smt. Manbhari Devi wife of Late Mool Chand, Resident of Budaniya, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 3. Rajesh son of Late Dhanna Ram, aged about 31 years, Resident of Budaniya, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. Sher Singh son of Late Dhanna Ram, aged about 28 years, Resident of Budaniya, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Claimant/Appellants Versus 1. Sunil Kumar son of Khyali Ram, Resident of Kayamsar, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Driver of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. RJ-180-SH-6037) 2. Manoj Kumar S/o Subhash Singh, R/o Kayamsar, Teh. Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. RJ-180-SH-6037) 3. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., I.c.i.c.i. Lombard House 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Near Riddhi Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabha Devi, Mumbai 400025 (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. RJ-180- SH-6037) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Agrawal and Mr. Hem Singh Rathore for Mr. SS Sunda HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 02/01/2025 1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants aggrieved from dismissal of claim petition [2025:RJ-JP:6660] (2 of 3) [CMA-5553/2017] No.80 of 2014 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu on 29.09.2016 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Office has pointed out a delay of 285 days and to substantiate the reasons, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed. 3. Having considered the submissions and also for the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay is condoned. 4. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands disposed of. 5. Learned counsel has submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a benevolent provision and learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the issue is required to be proved only on basis of preponderance of probability and not on basis of strict liability. He further submitted that the Tribunal without a cogent reason has dismissed the claim petition though issue No.1 was proved from evidence of AW-2 Randheer. At last, he submitted that the claimants are entitled for compensation so this appeal be remitted back after setting aside finding of issue No.1. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellants and perused the material placed on record. 7. On death of Dhanna Ram in an accident on 29.12.2013 by use of Motor Cycle No.RJ18-SH-6037, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation was filed by legal heirs of Dhana Ram. Two witnesses AW-1 claimant Prem Devi and AW-2 Randheer were [2025:RJ-JP:6660] (3 of 3) [CMA-5553/2017] examined by the claimants and exhibited 15 documents. The Tribunal after considered the evidence on record found that involvement of vehicle was not established and ultimately dismissed the claim petition. 8. Herein, the material suggests that an unknown vehicle has hit Dhanna Ram while he was crossing the road. An FIR was registered against unknown vehicle and later Randheer was introduced as an eye-witness. The admission of AW-1 clearly indicates that first phone received by Vinod Kumar after accident has informed cause of accident was a result of slip of motor cycle. The admission of AW-2 Randheer also indicate that the information of accident was given prior to Vinod Kumar before registration of FIR. The report dated 29.12.2013 was registered against unknown vehicle and there is no connect about involvement of vehicle No.RJ18-SH-6037. The police report is not an admissible document in evidence. Herein, the evidence on record is contrary to police report, therefore, the tribunal has rightly decided issue No.1 against the claimants. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The counsel has failed to establish that the Tribunal has recorded findings contrary to the material placed on record. Thus, the instant civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. As a result, the instant civil miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J Monu/5