[2026:RJ-JP:10758] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1294/2018 1. Mani Devi W/o Late Shri Kesha Ram, age 63 years, R/o Mohalla Banni, Ward No. 23, Udaipurwati, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 2. Vikram Singh S/o Late Shri Kesha Ram, age 25 years, R/o Mohalla Banni, Ward No. 23, Udaipurwati, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 3. Bahadur Mal S/o Late Shri Kesha Ram, age 30 years, R/o Mohalla Banni, Ward No. 23, Udaipurwati, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan ----Appellants Versus 1. Mahesh Kumar S/o Prabhati Lal, R/o Bagoli, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Driver Pickup No. RJ 23 GA 0464) 2. 3. 4. Muktilal S/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o 656, Barala Khejroli, Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan (Registered Owner Pickup No. RJ 23 GA 0464) Kailash Chand Son of Malaram, R/o Manaksas, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (As per agree- ment (Owner) Pickup No. RJ23 GA 0464) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, Station Road, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil & District Jhun- jhunu, Rajasthan (Insurance Company Pickup No. RJ23 GA 0464) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amin Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 13/03/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimants’) against the judgment [2026:RJ-JP:10758] (2 of 4) [CMA-1294/2018] dated 07.11.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in Claim Petition No. 101/2013 titled as Smt. Mani Devi & Ors. V. Mahesh Kumar & Ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition filed by the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 14.02.2013, Madan Lal was going to his sister’s house, at about 4 P.M., by a motorcycle which was being driven by Yuvraj. When the said motorcycle was passing through village Satinda, it was hit by a pickup bearing registration No. RJ23-GA-0464, being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the said accident, Madan Lal sustained injuries and thereafter succumbed to death. 3. The claimants, thereafter, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 07.11.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claim petition has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that the claimants failed to examine any eye witness. Moreover, the charge-sheet was not treated to be a cogent evidence. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal omitted to consider the other evidences led by the claimants. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants. It is further submitted by the counsel that the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and, therefore, requires no interference by this Court. 6. Heard and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:10758] (3 of 4) [CMA-1294/2018] 7. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Tribunal has decided issue No. 1 against the claimants on the ground that there was no eye witness to prove the occurrence of the accident and the charge-sheet produced before the learned Tribunal by claimants in their evidence, was not treated to be a substantial piece of evidence to prove the accident by the offending vehicle. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet & Anr. V. Abdul Kayan Neb & Anr., reported in 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. 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, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet (supra), it appears that the learned Tribunal has failed to evaluate the evidence led by the claimants, in its right perspective and hence, the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal is quashed [2026:RJ-JP:10758] (4 of 4) [CMA-1294/2018] and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. 10. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 13.04.2026. 11. Since, the accident pertains to the year 2013, it is expected from the learned Tribunal to decide the claim petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 12. A Copy of this order along-with the record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of. 14. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/134