[2026:RJ-JP:4501] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 898/2022 Bhawani Singh Saini S/o Moolchand, Aged About 52 Years, R/o- Dhani Karmadi, Gram Papurna, Tehsil Khetari Distt. Jhunjhunu. (Raj.). ----Appellant-Claimant Versus 1. Bhagwana Ram S/o Narsaram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Dhani Chachawali, Tan Papurna Tehsil Khetari Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Vehicle Driver Deceased). 1/1. Ramadevi @ Ramli W/o Late Bhagwanaram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Dhani Chachawali Gram Sanjay Nagar, Tan Papurna Tehsil Khetari Distt. Jhunjhunu. Rajasthan. 1/2. Sitaram S/o Late Bhagwanaram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dhani Chachawali Gram Sanjay Nagar, Tan Papurna Tehsil Khetari Distt. Jhunjhunu. Rajasthan. 1/3. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Bhagwanaram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Dhani Chachawali Gram Sanjay Nagar, Tan Papurna Tehsil Khetari Distt. Jhunjhunu. Rajasthan. 1/4. Subhash Chand S/o Late Bhagwanaram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Dhani Chachawali Gram Sanjay Nagar, Tan Papurna Tehsil Khetari Distt. Jhunjhunu. Rajasthan. 2. Kajodmal S/o Jhutharam, R/o Deeppura, P.S. Gudha Gaurji, Distt. Jhunjhunu. Rajasthan. Regd. Owner. 3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-08, EPIP, Ricco Industries Area, Sitapura, Jaipur. Raj. ----Respondents-Non-Claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Omveer Singh Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. with Mr. Prakhar Agrawal, Adv. & Ms. Anjali Assat, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 28/01/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant against the judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident [2026:RJ-JP:4501] (2 of 5) [CMA-898/2022] Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 08/2015 titled as Bhawani Singh Saini Vs. Bhagwana Ram (Deceased) & Ors., by which learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant. 2. As per the brief facts of the case, the claimant-appellant was going on his motor-cycle bearing registration No. RJ-18-SF-0284 on 04.09.2014. One pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. RJ- 02-G-7978 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') came from behind, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, thereby hitting the motor-cycle of the claimant- appellant. Due to the accident, claimant-appellant suffered grievous injuries causing him about 30% permanent disability. An FIR was lodged and after investigation of the case, charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1- Bhagwana Ram (since deceased) was submitted in the competent Court. Learned Tribunal framed as many as three issues for deciding the claim petition. The claimant-appellant examined himself, Mukesh Kumar and Suresh as AW-1, 2 & 3 respectively and also produced documents from Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-152. No documentary or oral evidence was produced on behalf of non- claimants/respondents including the Insurance Company and thereafter, the claim petition was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the claim petition has been dismissed mainly on the two grounds, firstly on delay in lodging the FIR and secondly, on the ground that as per the mechanical inspection report of the motor-cycle, being [2026:RJ-JP:4501] (3 of 5) [CMA-898/2022] driven, by the claimant-appellant, no damage to the rear side of the same was found. Learned counsel also submits that after investigation in the matter, charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle was submitted, in which the offending vehicle was found to be driven in rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel argues that owner of the offending vehicle in reply to notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') and driver of the offending vehicle in reply to the notice under Section 134 of the Act of 1988, have admitted the fact that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1-Bhagwana Ram. Learned counsel also argues that the delay in lodging the FIR, was due to the fact, that claimant-appellant, remained hospitalized for almost five days and after getting discharged from the hospital, he was able to lodge the FIR. Learned counsel contends that learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on very superficial ground, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be accepted and the matter be remanded back to learned Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh. 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayan Neb & Anr. [SLP (C) No. 10351/2019]. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents oppose the appeal and submit that the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal is well reasoned, which requires no interference of this Court and the appeal be dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:4501] (4 of 5) [CMA-898/2022] 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 7. In this matter, the injured Bhawani Singh was himself an eye-witness who narrated the whole incident before learned Tribunal. As per the reply submitted by owner and driver to the notice under Section 133 and 134 of the Act of 1988 respectively, wherein both of them have admitted that respondent No.1- Bhagwana Ram was driving the offending vehicle against whom charge-sheet was filed in the criminal court. The claimant- appellant produced himself and other witnesses and also proved the occurrence of the incident by producing police challan papers including the mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, which shows that both the vehicles were involved in the accident. It is also admitted fact that no evidence either oral or documentary was submitted by the non-claimants/respondents before the learned Tribunal to controvert the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the claimant- appellant. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayan Neb & Anr. [SLP (C) No. 10351/2019] decided on 25.02.2025 has held as under:- "4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye-witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver. [2026:RJ-JP:4501] (5 of 5) [CMA-898/2022] 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court both manifestly erred in law in refusing to grant any compensation to the claimants. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we would have remitted the matter to the Tribunal for determination of the compensation to be payable to the claimants." 9. Therefore, relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet (supra) and as per the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that impugned order passed by learned Tribunal requires interference by this Court. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to quash and set aside the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal and remand back to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 10. Both the parties are directed to appear before learned Tribunal on 09.03.2026. Registry is directed to send the copy of the judgment and record forthwith to the learned Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /35