[2025:RJ-JP:51992] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3363/2022 Kum. Ishita Lalwani D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Lalwani, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 5/24, S.F.S. Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020 (P.S. Shipra Path, Mansarovar). ----Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Ramesh Kumar Son Of Srilal, Aged 53 Years, Resident of Imarlota, P.S. And Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani (Haryana) (Owner & Driver Truck No. HR-46-B-7492) 2. Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd., Dara House, Second Floor No. 234, N.S.C. Bora Road, Chennai and E-52, Second Floor, A.R.G. Building, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur through Regional Manager (Insurance Co. Truck No. HR-46-B-7492) ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. (for respondent No.2) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order Date of Arguments Concluded : 14/11/2025 Date of Judgment Reserved : 14/11/2025 Full/Operative Part Uploaded : Full Date of Judgment Pronounced : 20/01/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant against the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2022 passed by learned Special Court, Printing and Stationary Embezzlement Case and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter [2025:RJ-JP:51992] (2 of 7) [CMA-3363/2022] referred to as learned 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 790/2017 (52/2016), whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimant- appellant has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant-appellant along with her parents, was travelling by Car No. RJ-14-CN-5536 from Jaipur to Udaipur on 26.03.2013. Father of the claimant- appellant was driving the aforesaid car. At about 6 pm, a truck No. HR-46-B-7492, allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by its driver-respondent No.1, hit the aforesaid car. As a result of the collision, claimant-appellant sustained serious injuries. An F.I.R. No. 89/2013 was lodged in Police Station Chanderiya, District Chittorgarh on 26.03.2013. According to the site plan dated 28.03.2013, it has been mentioned that due to bursting of the tyre of the aforesaid car; it crossed the divider and stopped in the middle of the road and in the meantime, the offending vehicle i.e. truck approached from opposite direction and hit the car. Moreover, the same manner of the accident was stated in the statement of the claimant and her mother recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the investigation in the said F.I.R., a charge-sheet under Section 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. was filed against the truck driver-respondent No.1 on 20.04.2013. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of the said charge- sheet, respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle had also confessed his guilt of causing the accident due to his rash and negligent driving on 07.08.2021. The claimant-appellant claimed a sum of Rs.32,20,00,000/- as compensation before the learned tribunal, as she has sustained permanent disability of 100% due to 'paraplegia'. [2025:RJ-JP:51992] (3 of 7) [CMA-3363/2022] 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the claimant- appellant contends that learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 19.09.2022, held that since the claimant-appellant has failed to prove negligence on the part of the truck driver- respondent No.1 in the said accident, therefore, the claimant- appellant is not entitled to get any compensation and thereby, dismissed the claim petition. While dismissing the said claim petition, learned Tribunal relied upon the decision passed by the Coordinate Bench at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Mukesh Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. (S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 580/2014) decided on 03.12.2015, wherein, it was observed that mere filing of charge-sheet against the driver is not the conclusive proof of rash and negligent driving qua the driver for causing the accident. Hence, being aggrieved with the said dismissal, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant- appellant to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 19.09.2022 passed by learned Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel further contends that the learned Tribunal has decided the claim petition as if it was a criminal case. It is the settled law that the strict proof of fact is required in a criminal case, whereas the claim petitions are decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposes the prayer made on behalf of the claimant-appellant and contends that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:51992] (4 of 7) [CMA-3363/2022] 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case; that the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle; the fact that after the filing of the charge-sheet and the fact that driver of the offending vehicle also confessed guilt of causing accident due to his rash and negligent driving, this Court is of the opinion that negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle is not required to be proved separately by the claimant-appellant, 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." 8. Further, in the present case, not only the charge-sheet has been filed but the cognizance against the driver of the offending vehicle has also been taken by the concerned court along with his confession of guilt of causing the accident due to rash and [2025:RJ-JP:51992] (5 of 7) [CMA-3363/2022] negligent driving, which has also been placed on record. The observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajani Sahoo & Ors. [SLP (C) No.29302/2019] decided on 02.01.2025, is reproduced hereinbelow:- “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.” 9. On the point of negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, it is an admitted fact that the car of the claimant-appellant was hit by the offending vehicle, while in use. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 9 decided on 03.01.2001, has held:- "11. It must be noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide claims arising out of negligence in the use of motor vehicles. Negligence is only one of the species of the causes of action for making a claim for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles. There are other premises for such cause of action. 12. Even if there is no negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the motor vehicle, but accident happens while the vehicle was in use, should not the owner be made liable for damages to the person who suffered on account of such accident? This question depends upon [2025:RJ-JP:51992] (6 of 7) [CMA-3363/2022] how far the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher [(1861- 73) All ER Rep 1 : (1868) 3 HL 330] can apply in motor accident cases. The said rule is summarised by Blackburn, J., thus: “[T]he true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default, or, perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but, as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.” 10. Therefore, in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ranjeet (supra) and Rajani Sahoo (supra) and Kaushnuma Begum (supra), it is an admitted position in the present case, since the police records are available on record, the learned tribunal ought to have consider the legislative intent behind the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it is a beneficial legislation and a self-contained act with an object to give effective relief to the victims and families of the motor accident claims, also the fact that, since the charge-sheet has already been filed and thereafter, the driver of the offending vehicle also confessed the guilt of causing the alleged accident due to his rash and negligent driving, hence, negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle is not required to be proved separately by the claimant-appellant, as filing of the charge-sheet is itself sufficient to decide the claim case, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by learned Tribunal. [2025:RJ-JP:51992] (7 of 7) [CMA-3363/2022] 11. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2022 passed by learned Special Court, Printing and Stationary Embezzlement Case and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur in M.A.C. No. 790/2017 is set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to learned Tribunal with the direction to the learned tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in accordance with law and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ranjeet (supra), Rajani Sahoo (supra) and Kaushnuma Begum (supra) and other judgments which may be cited by the parties before the learned Tribunal. 12. Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the learned Tribunal along with the record for compliance of the same. 13. It is directed that both the parties shall appear before learned Tribunal on 23.02.2026. 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. 23.02.2026. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /104-S.