[2025:RJ-JP:50302] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2809/2010 Niranjan S/o Shri Ram Khilari, R/o Vijalwara, aged 18 years, Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli ----Appellant Versus 1. Ram Khilari Meena S/o Shrilal Meena, R/o Near Truck Union, Hindon City, Distt. Karauli (Driver Of The Truck No. Rj-29-G-1172) 2. Brij Mohan S/o Shri Mishri Lal, R/o Khohara Mulla, P.S. Slempur, Tehsil Mahwa, Distt. Dausa (Owner Of The Truck No. Rj-29-G-1172) 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 94, Harikripa Marg, Sawai Madhopur having Its Regional Office At Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Insurer Of The Truck No. Rj-29-G-1172) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr.Aditya Sharma for Mr.J.P. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anoop Meena for Mr.Anurag Sharma Mr.Mohsin for Mr.Vijay Dutt Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Judgment 1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 09.12.2025 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 09.12.2025 3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 17.12.2025 1. The appellant-Niranjan has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1988’) against the judgment dated 12.07.2010 [2025:RJ-JP:50302] (2 of 4) [CMA-2809/2010] passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.21/2009, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal committed a serious mistake while dismissing the claim petition by not considering the fact that the incident occurred on 21.09.2007, and immediately thereafter the appellant was taken to the hospital, where he was treated. An FIR was also lodged on the same day against the owner and driver of the truck bearing No.RJ-29-G-1172 for causing injuries to the appellant by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 12.07.2010 are contrary to the record. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal framed four issues and all the them were decided against him, on the basis of which the claim petition was dismissed. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal be set aside, and the claim amount be awarded to him, or in the alternative, the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 4. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the insurance company as well as owner of the vehicle strongly opposed the submissions as made by learned counsel for the appellant and jointly submitted that the learned Tribunal committed no mistake while passing the impugned order dated 12.07.2010. Both the counsels further submitted that the complete case as presented before the learned Tribunal, as well as before this Court, is false and baseless, as no such incident had occurred. The learned [2025:RJ-JP:50302] (3 of 4) [CMA-2809/2010] Tribunal specifically recorded in its finding, while deciding the issue No.1, that the complete evidence as produced to support the claim was contradictory. Therefore, no error was committed by the learned Tribunal while passing the order as impugned in the present appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. This Court, on the basis of the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, noted that the alleged incident occurred on 21.09.2007 and, as per the appellant, the vehicle in question, i.e., Truck bearing No.RJ-29-G-1172, hit the appellant, causing him serious injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to support the case by referring to the FIR as well as medical evidence. This Court, therefore, noted that the FIR was registered on 21.09.2007 for the offences under Section 297 and 337 IPC at 6:45 PM, lodged by one Heera Lal, who stated that the respondent-vehicle owner caused injuries to the appellant on the alleged date. 7. This Court also examined the injury report/MLC (Exhibit-7) dated 21.09.2007 as prepared at 3:45 P.M and also the X-Ray report (Exhibit-8) dated 04.10.2007. Apart from above, other medical evidence and documents as produced before the learned Tribunal shows that the petitioner suffered certain injuries between 2:40 P.M to 3:00 P.M on 21.09.2007, however, he was not admitted in any hospital. This Court also noted that there is a significant time gap between the alleged incident and reporting of the incident to the Police. 8. To support the claim before the learned Tribunal, the complainant-Heera Lal appeared as AW-2 and supported the [2025:RJ-JP:50302] (4 of 4) [CMA-2809/2010] averments as made in the FIR regarding the incident. However, the injured, who is the appellant herein, did not appear to give evidence before the learned Tribunal and no justification of the appellant is available on record, either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court. The father of the appellant-Ram Khiladi was produced in evidence as AW-1, but he was not the eye witness and further as per the cross- examination, he received the information three days after the incident, and therefore, he is not the relevant witness and failed to support the case of the appellant. 9. After considering the order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal and the complete record of the case, this Court noted that though the appellant filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal as well as present appeal before this Court but he did not appear before the learned Tribunal to give evidence. Being the injured person, he was the most important witness and his evidence was most relevant for adjudicating the claim. In the absence of any evidence from the appellant before the learned Tribunal, and in view of the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 12.07.2010, this Court finds no force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant as raised in the present appeal. 10. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J Monika/30