[2025:RJ-JP:51991] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3708/2018 1. Smt Reena Meena W/o Late Shri Brij Gopal Meena, Aged 38 Years 2. Sarvesh Meena S/o Late Shri Brij Gopal Meena, Aged 14 Years 3. Ayush Meena S/o Late Shri Brij Gopal Meena, Aged 10 Years, No. 2 And 3 Minors Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Reena Meena W/o Late Shri Brij Gopal Meena All are R/o Teerath, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.) ----Claimants/Appellants 4. Smt. Pari Bai Meena W/o Late Shri Ram Kishan Meena (Died & Deleted) Versus 1. Rajkhan S/o Shri Bhaunda Khan, R/o Ahmadpur Tehsil And District Alwar (Raj.) (Driver Truck No. RJ-14-2G- 4220) 2. Varun Braveries Limited, Khasra No 282, Bal Mukundpura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur And At Present Spe. 290-292 RIICO Industrial Area, Chaupanki, Bhiwadi Alwar (Raj.) (Registered Owner Truck No. RJ-14-2G-4220) 3. The Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Limited, Regional Office, 8, Katewa Bhawan, Offosite Ganpati Plaja, M.I. Road, Jaipur Through Regional Manager. (Insurance Co. Truck No. RJ-14-2G-4220) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rajani Vyas, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order Date of Arguments Concluded : 03/12/2025 Date of Judgment Reserved : 03/12/2025 Full/Operative Part Uploaded : Full Date of Judgment Pronounced : 20/01/2026 [2025:RJ-JP:51991] (2 of 8) [CMA-3708/2018] 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants against the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No. 1, Kota (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 792/2014, whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellants has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that on 26.12.2008, the deceased-Dr. Brij Gopal Meena, while riding his motorcycle, met with a motor accident involving a truck bearing registration No. RJ-14-2G-4220, which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner. An FIR was registered and in pursuance of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending truck. Learned counsel also submits that a claim petition No. 792/2014 was filed by the claimants-appellants before learned Tribunal contending that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending truck and compensation under various heads was claimed by the claimants-appellants. It was further submitted that the deceased who was aged about 41 years, was serving as a Medical Officer under the Government of Rajasthan, and was the sole earning member of the family. Learned counsel contends that the learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.03.2018, dismissed the claim petition, while observing that the registration number of the offending truck mentioned in the FIR differed from the registration number reflected in the charge-sheet, thereby, creating inconsistency with regard to the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident. Learned counsel argues that the learned Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition based upon the findings that mere involvement of a vehicle cannot be presumed in the absence [2025:RJ-JP:51991] (3 of 8) [CMA-3708/2018] of cogent and consistent evidence and also, that filing of a charge- sheet by itself is not conclusive proof of negligence. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has adopted a technical approach and has decided the claim petition as if it was a criminal trial. It is also submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter be referred as ‘Act of 1988’) are summary in nature thus, are required to be decided on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and not on strict proof, as required in criminal cases. Learned counsel prays that the matter requires reconsideration by the learned Tribunal after a holistic re-appreciation of the evidence on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3- Insurance Company while vehemently opposing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, supports the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal and submits that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal does not warrant interference of this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of Bimla Devi Vs. Himachal RTC reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530, has held as below:- "15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The [2025:RJ-JP:51991] (4 of 8) [CMA-3708/2018] standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties." 7. Admittedly, learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants, has erred in appreciating the testimony of AW-3-Mohan Lal on the ground of an alleged discrepancy between his examination-in-chief and cross- examination. The relevant portion of his examination-in-chief is reproduced hereinbelow: - **----fnukad 26-12-2008 dks eSa cl la[;k vkj- ts- 20&ih-,-&2231 dk pkyu dj dksVk ls t;iqj tkdj o t;iqj ls dksVk ok;k bUnzx<+ gksrs gq, jkf= ds yxHkx 9-20 ij dqUgkM+h isVzksy iEi ij igqapk ogka ij 2&3 lokfj;ksa dks mrkjus ds ckn pEcy iqfy;k ij igqapk esjs vkxs vkxs ,d eksVj lkbZfdy pkyd py jgk FkkA u;kiqjk dksVk dh vksj ls ,d Vzd ,y-ih- vkj-ts- 14&2th&4220 rst xfr ls vk;k ftldk pkyd mls xQyr ykijokgh] rst xfr ls pyk jgk Fkk mlus ,d VzsDVj dks ,dne vksojVsd fd;k rFkk viuh lkbZM esa py jgh eksVj lkbZfdy ds VDdj ekj nhA-------** Therefore, the aforesaid deposition of AW-3 explains the manner of the accident in clear terms and the essential version regarding the direction of the vehicles and the head-on collision, remained consistent, whereas the learned Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the statements of AW-3 as reproduced below:- ^^-----,d egRoiw.kZ ckr ;g Hkh gS fd bl xokg us tks c;ku fn;s gS] muds vuqlkj bldh cl Hkh cwUnh dh rjQ ls dksVk dh rjQ vk jgh [2025:RJ-JP:51991] (5 of 8) [CMA-3708/2018] Fkh] iz'uxr Vªd Hkh cwUnh dh vksj ls dksVk dh rjQ vk jgk Fkk rFkk e`rd dh eksVjlkbZfdy Hkh cwUnh dh vksj ls dksVk dh rjQ vk jgh FkhA----** It is evident that the learned Tribunal, instead of appreciating the substance of the testimony in the context of the overall evidence, rejected the same by laying emphasis on perceived inconsistencies, without undertaking a holistic appreciation of the evidence as a whole. 8. It is to be noted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the police records; site plan; FIR; charge-sheet and deposition of AW-3, available on record, which clearly indicate involvement of the offending truck in the accident. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors. reported in SLP (C) No. 29302 of 2019 decided on 02.01.2025, has held:- “9. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act, it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.” In light of the judgment passed in Rajani Sahoo (supra), the proceedings under Act of 1988 are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard and the Tribunal is required to decide [2025:RJ-JP:51991] (6 of 8) [CMA-3708/2018] the matter on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Police records, including FIR, site plan and charge-sheet, constitute relevant material for determining negligence. 10. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Bhawani Devi v. Krishan Kumar Saini and others reported in 1984 Supreme (P&H) 411 has held:- “7……These are matters which can best be explained by the drivers of the vehicles concerned and if they chose to keep away from the witness box and that too without really sound reasons, it must indeed be construed as a telling circumstance against them. When a Tribunal is confronted with the vexed controversy of apportioning blame, amongst the two vehicles involved in the accident, it is clearly the duty of both parties to place before it the best evidence available. A party may refrain from doing so, but only on peril of an adverse inference being drawn against it…..” In the light of judgment passed in Bhawani Devi (supra), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has emphasized that the driver of the offending vehicle is the most appropriate witness to explain the manner in which the accident occurred and further observed that in the cases where driver of the offending vehicle does not step into the witness box, the Tribunal is required to examine the effect of such non-appearance in the overall appreciation of evidence, unless satisfactory reasons are placed on record justifying such absence. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case; the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending truck and also, the fact that the driver of the offending truck recused himself from appearing as a witness, this Court is of the opinion that negligence on the part of driver of the offending truck is not required to be proved [2025:RJ-JP:51991] (7 of 8) [CMA-3708/2018] separately by the claimants-appellants, as filing of the charge- sheet is itself sufficient to decide the claim case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. [SLP (C) No. 10351/2019] decided on 25.02.2025, has held as below:- “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. 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.” 12. In the present case, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has discarded the claim primarily on the ground that negligence was not proved beyond doubt, without appreciating the beneficial nature of the legislation and the standard of proof applicable to the cases related to motor accident claims. 13. In the opinion of this Court, the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal suffers from material irregularity and the matter requires reconsideration. This Court deems it appropriate that the claim petition be decided afresh after re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No. 1, Kota in M.A.C. No. 792/2014 is hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to learned Tribunal [2025:RJ-JP:51991] (8 of 8) [CMA-3708/2018] with the direction to the learned tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ranjeet (supra), Rajani Sahoo (supra) and other judgments which may be cited by the parties before the learned Tribunal. 15. Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the learned Tribunal along with the record for compliance of the same. 16. It is directed that both the parties shall appear before learned Tribunal on 16.02.2026. Learned Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition expeditiously as early as possible; not beyond the period of 6 months from the first date of appearance i.e. 16.02.2026. 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /---