[2026:RJ-JP:4425] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4329/2008 Ramesh Khandelwal son of Sh. Ramswaroop Khandelwal, aged about 42 years, resident 45-A, Jayanti Colony, Bas Badanpura, Gangapol, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Shakur Khan son of Abdul Gafur Khan, resident of A-39, Suraj Colony, behind Beniwal Kaante, Ramgarh Mod, Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur. 2. New India Insurance Company Limited through Mandaliya Prabandhak Branch, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.N. Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 30/01/2026 1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant – Ramesh Khandelwal son of Sh. Ramswaroop Khandelwal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the judgment dated 03.07.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby the Claim Petition No.878/2005 (1785/2004) filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground that he failed to prove his claim before learned Tribunal with regard to alleged incident and the involvement of the said vehicle stated to have caused the accident and the injuries as suffered by him due to said accident. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the detailed facts placed on record. He [2026:RJ-JP:4425] (2 of 2) [CMA-4329/2008] further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error while passing the impugned order dated 03.07.2008. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the amount claimed in the claim petition be awarded. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company has strongly opposed the submissions as made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Tribunal committed no error while passing the impugned order dated 03.07.2008, as the appellant failed to satisfy the learned Tribunal with regard to the alleged incident on the basis of which the claim petition was filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. This Court considered the fact that learned Tribunal, while deciding the claim petition, framed as many as five issues. However the learned Tribunal noted that the there was a serious delay in lodging the FIR regarding the alleged incident. The incident was stated to have occurred on 10.05.2004, whereas the Police report was made on 03.06.2004. Further, there was no eye witness to the incident. After going through the complete evidence and the documents on record, the learned Tribunal did not find the claim to be genuine and therefore, rejected the claim petition. 6. This Court after hearing counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, finds no error in the impugned order dated 03.07.2008 passed by learned Tribunal, therefore, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J PAYAL DHAWAN /25