[2025:RJ-JP:46833] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 651/2018 Naseemuddeen Quaji S/o Shri Nasrudeen Quaji, R/o Plot No. 284, Subhash Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur ----Claimant Appellant Versus 1. Hari Ram S/o Shri Lakshmi Narain, B/c Teli, R/o 18, Dusad Nagar Second, Behind Kohinoor Cinema, Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur Raj. (Driver Jeep No. RJ-14-IP-0161) 2. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad, R/o Shrirampura P.S. Sanganer Sadar, Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur Raj. (Owner Jeep No. RJ-14-IP-0161) 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Through Regional Manager. (Insurance Company Jeep No. RJ-14-IP-0161) ----Non-claimants Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain and Mr. Srikant Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Judgment Arguments Concluded on :: October 13, 2025 Reserved on :: October 13, 2025 Pronounced on :: November 26, 2025 1. By filing present civil misc. appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') the claimant/ appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) [for [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (2 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] short 'the Tribunal'] in MAC Petition No. (1/2015) (374/2005), (1924/2004), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant/ claimant. 2. The facts emerge out from the pleadings are that the claimant /appellant filed a claim petition before the tribunal mentioning therein that on 20.02.2004 at about 11:30 PM, he was going by motorcycle No. RJ-20-9M-6976 along-with his brother-in- law- Mohammad Khalid Faruki, from Sanganer Airport towards his house at Shastri Nagar. Mohammad Khalid was riding the motorcycle with moderate speed on the correct side of the road. When they reached near Durgapura Crossing, a jeep bearing No. RJ-14-1P-0161, being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver came from the opposite direction and by coming on the wrong side, hit the motorcycle which resulted into sustaining injuries by the claimant. The claimant was immediately taken to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The claimant further mentioned that as per information furnished by the people, he stated the number of Jeep as RJ-14-P-1566 which after the accident was passing from the place of incident. The claimant further mentioned in the claim petition that thereafter on getting the complete information and on the basis of information furnished by the persons who were present at the place of incident, very next day registered the FIR No.114/2004 at Police Station Sanganer for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. After investigation the police submitted the challan against the respondent/ non-claimant No.1 for the afore- mentioned offences. The claimant further mentioned that at the [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (3 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] time of accident he was 32 years of age and by profession he is an Advocate. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs.8,30,000/- along-with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. Despite issuance of notice, no-one put in appearance on behalf of respondent/ non-claimant No.1. The non-claimant-respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement of denial. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the tribunal framed five issues including the relief, which are as under:- "1. आयय पशनगत वयहन ससखयय जजप आर.जज. 14-1 पज-0161 कज चयलक ववपकज ससखयय । हरररयम कज दयरय वदनयसक 20.2.2004 कक टटक रकड पर ददगयरपदरय चचरयहज कज पयस उक वयहन कक उपजकय/ उतयवलजपन सज चलयकर कक गई ददररटनय मम आईचकटट कज पररणयम सवरप नपजमउदजन कयजज कज चकटम आई ? 2. आयय उक वयहन चयलक तब उक वयहन सवयमज ववपकज ससखयय 2 कज वनयकजन मम हककर उसज कज वहतयरर एवस लयभयरर कययर कर रहय रय ? 3. आयय ववपकज ससखयय 3 बजमय कमपनज दयरय अपनज वलवखत करन कक पयरवमभक आपवतयट एवस ववशजष करन कज मदज- नजर बजमय कमपनज अपनज दयवयतव सज मदक हक सकतज हह नहह तक इसकय पभयव ? 4. आयय दयवजदयर अपनज दयवज मम असवकत पशनगत रयवश यय अनय ककई नययय सममत रयवश पय सकय हह, हयह तक कचन- कचन दयवज- दयर वकतनज- वफतनज रयवश, वकस- वकस ववपकज सज एवस वकस पकयर सज पय सकतज हह ? 5.अनदतकष?" 5. Earlier the Tribunal passed the judgement and award dated 02.07.2007 dismissing the claim petition. Against the judgement and award dated 02.07.2007, the appellant preferred [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (4 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3471/2007 which was partly allowed vide judgement dated 20.02.2015 and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh as early as possible, qua issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the light of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in the appeal. 6. After being the matter remanded, the Tribunal has passed the fresh award dated 27.10.2017 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/ appellant has been dismissed. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned judgement and award, the present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ claimant. 7. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, counsel appearing for the claimant /appellant submitted that the impugned award of the Tribunal is totally against law and facts of the case. He submitted that the Tribunal has manifestly erred in deciding Issue No. 1 and 2 in a manner that the claimant appellant has failed to prove rash and negligent driving by the respondent no. 1 and also the involvement of the Jeep in this accident. The grounds which have been taken by the learned Tribunal while deciding these issues were not at all available on record and the facts discussed while deciding these issues are based only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The reasons which have been given for not believing the involvement of the Jeep in this accident were not even raised at the time of arguments of the case and the questions relating to these facts were not put to the witnesses during the course of their examination. It was proved by un-rebutted evidence both [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (5 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] oral and documentary that on 20.2.2004 at about 11.30 pm. the claimant appellant was going by Motor Cycle No.RJ-20-9M-6976, along with brother-in-law Mohammd Khalid Faruki, from Sanganer Airport towards his house at Shastri nagar. Mohmmad Khalid was riding the Motor Cycle with moderate speed and on the correct side the road. When they reached near Durgapura Crossing, a Jeep No. RJ-14-1P-0161, being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed respondent no. of 1 came by its driver from opposite direction and by violating the traffic rules and by coming on the wrong side hit the Motor Cycle which resulted in sustaining injuries. He submitted that the claimant was immediately taken to the S.M.S. Hsopital, Jaipur. Borther-in-law of the claimant appellant lodged the F.I.R. immediately in the hospital itself to the police authorities but because of misunderstanding condition of shock, the number of the jeep was written as RJ-14-P-1566, which was also passing through at the same time. Counsel further submitted that when the appellant went on the spot and came to know about the actual numbers of the offending vehicle then he immediately, wrote an application to the concerned police authorities in the early morning of 21.2.2004 in this regard. During the course of investigation the Jeep No. RJ-14-1P-0161 was seized by the police and a notice under section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act was given to respondent no. 2- the owner of the Jeep. He, in its reply, had admitted that at the time of the accident respondent No. 1 was driving the Jeep. After completion of investigation, a challan for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. was filed against respondent No. 1 in the [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (6 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] competent Court. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to disbelieve this evidence. Counsel also submitted that the Tribunal has totally ignored this important aspect of the case that no reply to the claim petition was given by the owner and driver of the jeep. No evidence whatsoever was lead by any of the respondents to rebut the oral and documentary evidence of the claimant appellant. In these circumstances, it was a fit case in which an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the respondents and these issues ought to have been decided in favour of the claimant appellant. Counsel also submitted that the Tribunal has decided the claim petition as if it was deciding a criminal case. It is a welll settled law that in a criminal case, strict proof is required, whereas the claim petitions are decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Counsel further submitted that it has been observed by the Tribunal that the appellant had not examined the witnesses who had informed Mohammad Khalid about the correct number of the jeep and had also not produced the seizure memo or mechanical inspection report of the jeep. When the appellant had examined three eye witnesses including himself, to prove the involvement of the jeep, supported by the documentary evidence, in these circumstances, non production of the seizure memo of the Jeep or its mechanical inspection report does not mean that the Jeep was not involved in the accident. The finding of the learned Tribunal that by production of these documents any damage in the [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (7 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] Jeep because of the accident could have been detected, is erroneous, because it is necessary that when Jeep struck against the Motor cycle from its bumper side then there must be some damage in the Jeep. In these circumstances also the finding of Issues No. 1 and 2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel also submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, all the issues ought to have been decided in favour of the appellant and amount of compensation claimed by him ought to have been awarded in his favour. He further submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in giving a liberty to the insurance Company to recover a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the claimant appellant, which was paid to him under no fault liability. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the narrated above and this case, as finding and the right of recovery given to the Insurance Company also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. Gaurav Jain with Mr. Srikant, counsels appearing for the respondent/ non-claimant- Insurance Company opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the appellant / claimant and supported the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal. Counsel for the respondent/non-claimant- Insurance Company also submitted that the appellant/ claimant has failed to establish / prove the involvement of the offending vehicle. 9. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsels appearing for the respective parties, perused the impugned [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (8 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] judgement and award and also gone through the record of the case. 10. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation and the requirement of proving the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle is not like of a criminal case where the facts regarding crime are to be proved by leading evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos.4010-4011/2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No.32011-32012/2018 decided on 08.12.2020 has given similar observations as under:- “22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye-witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz wherein this Court reiterated that: “7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pick-up [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (9 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himanchal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010)1 SCC (Cri) 1101])” (emphasis supplied) 11. In the present case the appellant /claimant has got examined three witnesses including him so as to prove the fact of accident and involvement of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161. In the affidavits of the three witnesses they have specifically stated that the alleged accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle being Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161. The notice under section 133 of the Act of 1988 was also given to the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161, who replied that at the time of alleged accident the non-claimant- Hari Ram was the driver of the vehicle. The police after investigation into the matter has also filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161 coming to the conclusion that the vehicle having Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161 has met in an accident in which the claimant / appellant has sustained injuries. Though in the FIR, the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle bearing No. RJ-14-P-1566 has been mentioned by the person who was with the appellant/ claimant at the time of accident, however, on information from the persons who were present on the spot, on the very next day, the appellant /claimant [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (10 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] intimated the police as regards the correction registration number of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161. The evidence from the claimant's side remained uncontroveted while cross-examining them. The FIR was lodged soon after the accident when the appellant /claimant was hospitalized. The report was lodged by the person who was with the appellant/ claimant. However, without any delay the appellant/ claimant on inquiry knowing that the actual vehicle involved in the accident is having registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161. This fact was intimated to the police immediately and the investigation of the police was also continued in that direction and after issuing notice to the owner of the offending vehicle under section 133 of the Act of 1988 and considering the reply of the owner of the vehicle, the charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161. 12. The Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the uncontroverted evidence of the witnesses from the claimant's side. The Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant/ claimant merely relied upon the fact that in the FIR the number of the offending vehicle is said to be other than the vehicle against which the claim petition has been filed. Many at times at the time of accident in a hurry the registration number of a vehicle which was though not involved in the accident but present on the spot, is mentioned. But in the present case without there being any delay on getting the information of the offending vehicle, the correct registration number of the offending vehicle was intimated to the police and thereafter, the police after [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (11 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] investigation filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161. 13. The Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition has also taken into consideration the fact that the mechanical report of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161 was not got exhibited. The charge-sheet was submitted by the police in connection with the accident caused by the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161 in which there is a mechanical report of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-1P-0161. The owner of the vehicle in reply to the notice under section 133 of the Act of 1988 has stated that at the time of alleged accident, the non-claimant- Hariram was the driver of the vehicle. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle have not filed any written statement to the claim petition and therefore, the evidence of the claimant party remained uncontroverted and in absence of any written statement to the claim petition from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, the facts stated in the affidavit by the claimant's witnesses which remained uncontroverted in the cross-examination, shall be presumed to be correct. 14. The High Court vide its judgement dated 20.02.2015 has directed the Tribunal to decide the issues No.1,2 and 4 afresh after taking into consideration the grounds raised in the appeal earlier preferred by the claimant/ appellant. If we go by the earlier award dated 02.07.2007 and the fresh Award dated 27.10.2017, we find that the grounds which were raised in the appeal earlier [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (12 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] by the appellant/ claimant have not been taken care of by the tribunal. Because of non-consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal earlier by the appellant/ claimant, as ordered by the High Court, the matter could have remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as ordered earlier but looking to the fact that the accident is of 2004, the Court itself is taking care of the grounds raised earlier by the appellant/ claimant. 15. In view of the discussion made above, the issues No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the appellant/ claimant and against the respondents/non-claimants. 16. Accordingly, this civil misc. appeal is allowed. The judgement and award dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) in MAC Petition No. (1/2015) (374/2005), (1924/2004) is set aside. The issues No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the appellant/ claimant and against the non- claimants. The issue No.3 has already been decided against the non-claimant- Insurance Company, against which no appeal was ever preferred by the non-claimant-Insurance Company. Hence, the issue No.3 stands decided against the Insurance Company. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the issues No.4 and 5 as regards the quantum and relief to be allowed to the appellant/ claimant on the basis of evidence as regards the income and other heads. 17. Since the accident is of 2004, it is expected from the Tribunal to decide the issues No. 4 and 5 on the basis of the [2025:RJ-JP:46833] (13 of 13) [CMA-651/2018] evidence available before the Tribunal as regards the quantum of compensation and relief extended to the claimant/ appellant as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date the certified copy of this Judgement and the record of this claim petition is received by the Tribunal. 18. 18. The Registry is directed to remit back the record of the claim petition without any delay to the concerned Tribunal. 19. Both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 10.12.2025. 20. In view of the judgement passed in the main appeal, pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar