[2026:RJ-JP:20475] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2921/2018 1. Jarina W/o Mohammed Immamuddin 2. Mohammed Immadmuddin S/o Rehamttullah, 3. Yasmeen D/o Mohammed Immamuddin 4. Parveen D/o Mohammed Immamuddin 5. Shahan D/o Mohammed Immamuddin 6. Mumtaz D/o Mohammed Immamuddin 7. Javed S/o Mohammed Immamuddin, All R/o S-5, Dhannadas Ki Bagichi, Behind Central Jail, Jaipur ----Claimants/Appellants Versus 1. Devaram S/o Hukmaram, R/o Satwadi Kala, Police Station Sambharlake Driver Truck No. RJ 02 G 8430 2. Kishnaram S/o Nandaram, R/o Jorpura, Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur Owner Truck No. RJ 02 G 8430 3. National Insurance Company Limited, Division Office At Paanch Batti, M.I. Road, Jaipur Having Its Regional Office At Near Nidhi Bhawan, High Court Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Regional Manager Insurer Truck No. RJ 02 G 8430 ----Non-claimants/Respondents 4. Aavid S/o Mohammed Immamuddin, R/o S-5, Dhannadas Ki Bagichi, Behind Central Jail, Jaipur ----Proforma Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv., Mr. Aashish Mittal, Adv. & Ms. Vinita Saini, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, Adv. & Mr. Mohsin, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Chawla, Adv. [2026:RJ-JP:20475] (2 of 9) [CMA-2921/2018] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Judgment 14/05/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants- appellants against the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.17 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.12/2016 (55/2009)(2056/2008), whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants for claiming compensation due to death of Guddu @ Arif in a road accident, has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a Truck bearing registration No. RJ14 GA 2313 carrying deceased-Guddu @ Arif (Khalasi) along with one labour namely Akbar, and driven by one- Lal Mohammed, was going from Delhi towards Jaipur. At a Village Malpura, another vehicle i.e. Trolla bearing registration No. RJ 02 G 8430, hit the said truck in which Guddu @ Arif was sitting, and thereby, causing injuries to him as well as the labour-Akbar, due to which both of them died. During investigation, it was found that the registration number of the offending vehicle i.e. Trolla, which hit the said Truck, was RJ 02 G 8430, being driven by respondent No.1-Devaram against whom, charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC was submitted before learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants- appellants submits that vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2018, learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed on behalf of the claimants-appellants, on the ground that the [2026:RJ-JP:20475] (3 of 9) [CMA-2921/2018] registration number of offending vehicle i.e. Trolla was not mentioned in the impugned FIR No.607/2007. Learned Tribunal also recorded the finding that the Trolla bearing registration No. RJ 02 G 8430 was wrongly involved in the alleged accident. Learned counsel further submits that in the same accident, two persons namely Guddu @ Arif and Akbar had died. Another claim petition was also filed on behalf of legal representatives of the deceased- Akbar i.e. M.A.C. Case No.487/2015 (316/2008) and the same was disposed of vide order dated 20.10.2022 by learned Essential Commodities Act and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. In the said claim petition, the driver, owner and the Insurance Company of both the vehicles i.e. the said Truck and Trolla (offending vehicle) were also made parties, whereas, in the claim petition in hand, the driver, owner and the Insurance Company of only offending vehicle i.e. Trolla No.RJ 02 G 8430 have been made parties. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that as the present case relates to composite negligence, the claimants were entitled to file the claim petition against both the vehicles or either one of them. Learned counsel further contends that the aforementioned claim petition No. 487/2015 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased-Akbar was allowed, whereby, learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs.6,26,920/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants, while holding 50 % composite negligence of both the drivers of vehicles involved in the alleged accident. Learned counsel also contends that the respondents-non-claimants did not file any appeal challenging the aforesaid award. However, the claimants preferred an appeal [2026:RJ-JP:20475] (4 of 9) [CMA-2921/2018] (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.414/2023) against the said award and thereby, vide judgment dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the same was allowed and the amount of compensation was enhanced by Rs.2,00,000/-. Learned counsel argues that no appeal was preferred by the respondent No.3-Insurance Company challenging the judgment dated 17.10.2023 and the Insurance Company satisfied the enhanced award. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that after due investigation, the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1-Devaram was submitted, therefore, as per the settled law, the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle was proved. Furthermore, as per the reply to the notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, owner of the offending vehicle admitted that at the time of alleged accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1- Devaram, hence, learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2018. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the present appeal be allowed and the said impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal, be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rizwan Ahmed-learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the claimants-appellants. However, he admits that another claim petition arising out of same incident, i.e. Claim Petition No.487/2015 was allowed by learned Essential Commodities Act and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II vide judgment and award dated 20.10.2022 [2026:RJ-JP:20475] (5 of 9) [CMA-2921/2018] and against the same judgment and award, an appeal (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.414/2023) filed on behalf of the claimants-appellants was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2023 and the amount of compensation was enhanced by Rs.2,00,000/-. Learned counsel is not in a position to rebut the fact that the award passed by learned Tribunal and enhanced by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, has already been satisfied by the respondent-Insurance Company. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, the case in hand relates to composite negligence. In the said accident, two vehicles i.e. one Truck bearing registration No. RJ14 GA 2313 along with Trolla bearing registration No. RJ 02 G 8430 were involved and the deceased-Arif Guddu was sitting in the Truck, therefore, the deceased was the third party in the said accident. As per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273, it has been observed that in case of composite negligence, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from drivers, owners and Insurance Company of both the offending vehicles or either one of them. Relevant para of the judgment passed in the case of Khenyei (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- "What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows : (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. [2026:RJ-JP:20475] (6 of 9) [CMA-2921/2018] (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award." In the case in hand, the claimants filed the claim petition against driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle i.e Trolla and charge-sheet has also been filed against the respondent No.1-who is driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the claim should not have been dismissed on the ground that registration number of other vehicle i.e. Trolla was not mentioned in the impugned FIR. [2026:RJ-JP:20475] (7 of 9) [CMA-2921/2018] 9. So far as, the submission of charge-sheet against drivers of the offending vehicles and their evidentiary value in the Motor Accident Cases is concerned, 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." 10. Furthermore, 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.” [2026:RJ-JP:20475] (8 of 9) [CMA-2921/2018] 11. Therefore, in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ranjeet (supra) and Rajani Sahoo (supra) and Khenyei (supra), it is an admitted position in the present case that charge-sheet has already been filed against driver of the offending vehicle; another claim petition arising out of the same accident has been allowed and the same has been upheld and enhanced by the coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2023 and award has also been satisfied by the respondent-Insurance Company, hence, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by learned Tribunal. 12. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.17 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in M.A.C. No.12/2016 (55/2009)(2056/2008) 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 the observations made hereinabove, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ranjeet (supra), Rajani Sahoo (supra) and Khenyei (supra) and the other judgments which may be cited by the parties before the learned Tribunal. 13. Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the learned Tribunal along with the record for compliance of the same. 14. It is directed that both the parties shall appear before learned Tribunal on 29.06.2026. Learned Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition expeditiously as early as possible; not [2026:RJ-JP:20475] (9 of 9) [CMA-2921/2018] beyond the period of 6 months from the first date of appearance i.e. 29.06.2026. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /13