[2026:RJ-JP:19031] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1053/2021 1. Master Parth Daga S/o Late Jai Kumar Daga, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through His Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Sunita Daga W/o Late Jai Kumar Daga. Resident Of House No. 46, Vikas Nagar Extension, Krishna Apartment, Dadi Ka Phatak, Murlipura, District Jaipur. 2. Sunita Daga W/o Late Jai Kumar Daga, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of House No. 46, Vikas Nagar Extension, Krishna Apartment, Dadi Ka Phatak, Murlipura, District Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Krishan Kant Bihani S/o Shri Harish Kumar, Resident Of 511, Galaxy Star, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur (Driver Activa Scooter No. Rj-14-Es-1612) 2. Smt. Sunita Daga W/o Late Jai Kumar Daga, Resident Of House No. 46, Vikas Nagar Extension, Krishna Apartment, Dadi Ka Phatak, Murlipura, District Jaipur. (Registered Owner Activa Scooter No. Rj-14-Es-1612) 3. New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office At 3Rd Floor Jeevan Jyoti, Lic Building, Subhash Nagar, Shopping Center, Jaipur Having Its Regional Office At Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Regional Manager, (Insurer Activa Scooter No. Rj-14-Es-1612) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur with Mr. Aashish Mittal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment Date of Conclusion of Arguments 07.04.2026 Date on which judgment was reserved 07.04.2026 Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full Judgment Date of Pronouncement 13.05.2026 [2026:RJ-JP:19031] (2 of 8) [CMA-1053/2021] 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment dated 07.04.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan No.1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.902/2014, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case, as alleged in the claim petition, are that on 16.04.2015, at around 9:00 PM, Jaikumar Daga (since deceased) was travelling as a pillion rider on an Activa Scooter bearing registration No.RJ-14-ES-1612, which was being driven by respondent No.1. When they reached near old JDA Office, Vidhyadhar Nagar, an unknown motorcycle, being driven rashly and negligently, came from behind and hit the said scooter. As a result of which, the scooter got disbalanced and both riders on the scooter fell on the road. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later on died on 08.05.2015. 2.1 In the claim petition, respondent No.1, who is the nephew of the deceased was impleaded as non-claimant No.1 in the capacity of the driver of the scooter. Claimant No.2, being the owner of the scooter, was impleaded as non-claimant No.2, and the respondent-Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), being insurer of the scooter, was impleaded as non-claimant No.3. 2.2 It was averred in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of respondent No.1 and the driver of the unknown motorcycle. On the said basis, the claimants claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,08,80,000/- under various heads. 3. The respondent No.1 filed reply to the claim petition and denied any negligence on his part in the occurrence of the accident. It was [2026:RJ-JP:19031] (3 of 8) [CMA-1053/2021] specifically pleaded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of unknown motorcycle. It was, however, further stated that even if any negligence was attributed to respondent No.1 in the occurrence of the accident, the liability to pay compensation would still be that of the Insurance Company. 3.1 The Insurance Company also filed its reply stating therein that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 09.05.2015 i.e., after a delay of around 23 days from the date of accident i.e., 16.04.2015. It was pleaded that the claim petition was not maintainable, as the claimant No.2 had filed the claim petition against herself. The Insurance Company further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of unknown motorcycle, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon it to pay compensation. It was also pleaded that the claimants and respondent No.1 were acting in collusion with each other with an intention to obtain compensation on the basis of false and fabricated facts. Accordingly, the Insurance Company denied its liability to indemnify or pay compensation to the claimants. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed seven issues. In support of their case, the claimants examined one witness, namely Sunita Daga (AW-1), and produced documentary evidence marked as Ex-1 to Ex-21. The Insurance Company produced the final report submitted by the investigating agency as documentary evidence which was marked as Ex-NA-1. 5. The learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 07.04.2021, dismissed the claim petition by holding that it was not proved that the deceased sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter. It was also held that since the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of unknown motorcycle, hence it was not a case of composite negligence. [2026:RJ-JP:19031] (4 of 8) [CMA-1053/2021] 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence produced by the claimants and erroneously dismissed the claim petition. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that in the instant case, after the occurrence of accident on 16.04.2015, the family members of the deceased remained engaged in his treatment till his death on 08.05.2015, and therefore, the FIR was lodged on 09.05.2015, i.e., immediately on the next day after his death. It is also submitted that despite there being a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR, the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition only on the said ground and in holding that the claimants falsely involved the scooter in the claim petition. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants and has supported the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. It is, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The case of the claimants is that the delay in lodging the FIR occurred because the family members of the deceased were engaged in the treatment of deceased. It is also their case that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of respondent No.1, who was driving the scooter owned by claimant No.2, and the driver of the unknown motorcycle. Further, it has been argued that since the case [2026:RJ-JP:19031] (5 of 8) [CMA-1053/2021] involves composite negligence, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from the insurer of any of the vehicles involved in the accident. 10.1 From a bare perusal of the record, it is clearly revealed that the accident occurred on 16.04.2015 whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 09.05.2015, i.e., after a delay of 23 days, by the respondent No.1, who was the driver of the scooter and was also a relative of the deceased. It is not the case of the claimants that respondent No.1 was also hospitalized. Rather, Sunita Daga (AW-1), wife of the deceased in her statement stated that she had met respondent No.1 during the treatment of the deceased and had also discussed with him about the accident. Despite this, except giving a general explanation that the family members were busy in treatment of the deceased, no specific reason has been furnished explaining as to why respondent No.1 did not lodge the FIR for 23 days. 10.2 It is further relevant to note that in the FIR which was lodged by the respondent No.1, it was alleged that the driver of unknown motorcycle hit the scooter from behind, due to which the scooter got disbalanced. Also, AW-1 in her testimony stated that respondent No.1 had informed her that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of unknown motorcycle. She further admitted that before lodging the FIR, she had read its content and had also admitted that the FIR was written correctly. 10.3 Thus, the contents of the FIR as well as the testimony of AW-1 clearly indicate that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of the unknown motorcycle as she admitted this fact in her testimony both by stating the statement of respondent No.1 and verifying the content of FIR. Meaning thereby that there was no [2026:RJ-JP:19031] (6 of 8) [CMA-1053/2021] negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in the occurrence of the accident. 10.4 Moreover, the investigation agency, after conducting investigation, also concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the unknown motorcycle. However, since the said vehicle could not be traced, a final report (Ex-NA-1) was filed on account of involvement of an unidentified motorcycle. It is pertinent to note that the investigating agency did not attribute any negligence to respondent No.1 nor did it treat the scooter as an offending vehicle involved in causing the accident. 10.5 From the above discussion, it is evident that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the unknown motorcycle and that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.1 and as such the present case cannot be treated as one of composite negligence, as alleged by the claimants. 11. Another aspect of the matter which also assumes significance is that, on behalf of the claimants, only claimant No.2, namely Sunita Daga (AW-1), was examined before the learned Tribunal, who admittedly was not an eye-witness to the accident. The only eye- witness to the incident was respondent No.1, who himself lodged the FIR and was driving the scooter at the relevant time. However, despite being the nephew of the deceased and a material witness to the accident, he was not examined by the claimants. 11.1 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the claimants could have examined respondent No.1 to prove their case. However, they failed to do so. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Badami, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1148/2018, decided on 09.05.2018, [2026:RJ-JP:19031] (7 of 8) [CMA-1053/2021] while dealing with the necessity of examining an eye-witness in a motor accident claim case, observed as under: “.......Claimants have to examine witnesses to prove the issues qua which onus is upon them. Other party gets a chance to cross-examine the witnesses and test the truthfulness of the said witnesses. Since, in the present case claimants had failed to examine any eye-witness to prove Issue no. 1, the said issue was liable to be decided against the claimants. Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is reversed and the said issue is decided against the claimants. In view of the finding on Issue No.1, the claim petition filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed.....” It is noteworthy that the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16262/2018 filed against the aforesaid judgment vide order dated 13.07.2018. 11.2 It is also apposite to mention that the records of the investigating agency reveals that respondent No.1 had sustained injuries in the accident and had allegedly suffered a fracture in his hand. However, he did not get himself medically examined so as to substantiate the injuries allegedly sustained by him in the said accident. 12. Therefore, all the aforesaid circumstances, viz. the delay in lodging the FIR, non-examination of the sole eye-witness, failure of respondent No.1 to subject himself to medical examination, the conclusion of the investigating agency, as well as the contents of the FIR and the testimony of AW-1, when considered together, do not support the case of the claimants. Rather, they create doubt regarding the manner and circumstances of the alleged accident. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the insurer of the scooter to pay compensation to the claimants. 13. As a result of above discussion, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated and examined the factual matrix of the case, and has also rightly appreciated the evidence available on [2026:RJ-JP:19031] (8 of 8) [CMA-1053/2021] record before passing the impugned judgment. No legal infirmity, perversity, or illegality is found in the said judgment warranting interference by this Court. 14. Resultantly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 15. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 16. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J Dharmendra Rakhecha/31