[2025:RJ-JP:18833] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4311/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office E-8 Epip Riico Industrial Area Sitapura Jaipur Rajasthan. (Insurance Company Pickup No. Rj26-Ga-0927) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sarita, Aged About 28 Years, W/o Late Shri Anil Kumar Meel 2. Vidhyadhar Meel, Aged About 54 Years, S/o Chandaram 3. Usha Devi W/o Vidhyadhar Meel, Aged About 50 Years, All R/o Village Khoru, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Mohammad Husain S/o Hamid Khan, R/o Mehboob Colony, Mahadewali, Tonk Rajasthan. 5. Mansur Ahmad S/o Noor Ahmad, R/o Motibagh Road, Abdul Wasid Khan Ki Gali, Tonk Rajasthan. (Vehicle Owner Pickup No. Rj26-Ga-0927) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha Mr. Rajdeep Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/05/2025 By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by learned Judge Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tonk in Claim Case No.169/2022 whereby application filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company on 21.09.2024 to summon the call details of driver and witnesses namely Mahendra Sain and Shivram has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:18833] (2 of 2) [CW-4311/2025] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is evident from the charge-sheet filed by the police that witnesses namely Mahendra Sain and Shivram were not present at the place of accident. He submits that according to the roz-namcha report and news published in the newspaper, accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver. In these circumstances, summoning the call details of aforesaid persons is essential for just decision of the case. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material made available on record. It appears from bare perusal of the record and impugned order that alleged incident took place on 29.11.2021 while application for summoning the call details was filed on 21.09.2024 i.e., after a delay of almost 2 years and 10 months. According to the policy of mobile service providers, call details are preserved for only two years therefore, record of call details cannot be procured from the server. Apart from this, court has considered the fact that call details are not essential for just decision of the case and genuineness of the witnesses can be adjudged only after providing opportunity of leading evidence to the parties. I am of the view that learned trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /64