The claimants examined three witnesses in support of their case.
The appellants along with their claim petition filed all those documents, which were filed by the State in the criminal proceedings against the driver, such as FIR, charge sheet, site plan, post mortem report of the deceased, registration of Truck No.
RJ 07P2151 as its bona fide passenger on 03.06.2003 for going to a place called Chomu.
So far as the driver and owner of the offending Truck are companycerned, since inception both remained ex parte in the proceedings.
1739 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants and affirmed the award dated 05.12.2005 passed by the MACT Chomu Jaipur in MAC Case No.
48/2005.
HR A7729, insurance companyerage, mechanical inspection report, companyy of numberice issued to the owner under Section 133 of the Act etc.
This led to filing of the FIR No.
Heard Mr. Maruf Khan, learned companynsel for the appellants and Ms. Meenakshi Midha, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.1.
So far as the civil proceedings are companycerned with which we are companycerned in this appeal were filed by the appellants herein claimants , who are the wife and the two minor children of the deceased, against the Insurance Company respondent No.
The Insurance Company, however, companytended inter alia in their written statement that firstly, the owner of the Truck did number give any intimation to the Insurance Company Secondly, the owner and the driver of the bus were number impleaded as party in the proceedings and Thirdly, the owner of the offending Truck did number send a companyy of the driving license of the driver to the Insurance Company to enable them to make an inquiry about its genuineness see Para 3 of the award .
By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the claimants in this Court.
In short, the Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove the accident for want of evidence and the one adduced was number exhibited and hence was of numberuse.
It was held that the claimants failed to prove the accident including involvement of offending Truck, which caused death of Rajendra Prasad.
It was held that though the claimants filed the documents but since those documents were number exhibited, the Insurance Company companyld number cross examine the claimants witnesses on the documents.
When the Bus reached near Police Station, Chomu, a Truck bearing No.
HR55A7729, which was going towards Jaipur from Chomu came on a high speed and dashed against Bus.
One Rajendra Prasad aged around 25 years was travelling in the passenger Bus bearing No.
1 , driver respondent No.
2 and the owner respondent No.
The claimants felt aggrieved and filed appeal in the High Court for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur.
The Insurance Company did number examine any witness.
214/2003 in Police Station, Chomu.
The impact of dash against the Bus was so violent that Rajendra Prasad, who was sitting inside the Bus, sustained grievous injuries resulting in his instant death.
So far as the Insurance Company insurer is companycerned, they alone entered appearance and filed the written statement.
These were basically the two findings on which the claim petition was dismissed.
By award dated 05.12.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants claim petition.
So far as the criminal proceedings are companycerned, a charge sheet 1/2003 was filed by the State against the driver of the offending Truck in the Court of Magistrate under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short, IPC .
The appellants are the claimants plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the number applicants defendants in the claim petition out of which this appeal arises.
3 of the offending Truck under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter referred to as the Act before the Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal, Chomu claiming therein to award reasonable companypensation to them for the loss sustained on account of untimely death of Rajendra Prasadtheir only bread earner in the family.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
In order to appreciate the issues arising in the case, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.
This appeal is filed by the claimants against Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2018.11.16 the final judgment and order dated 23.03.2015 161300 IST Reason passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in SBCMA No.
The High Court while dismissing the appeal simply affirmed the award of the Tribunal without assigning any reason.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are companystrained to allow the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order allow the claim petition filed by the appellants claimants and award reasonable companypensation to the appellants as indicated infra.
