RJ 196636, he was hit by jeep No.
Besides, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of respondent No.2 Chail Singh DW1 and Bhanwar Singh DW2 who had stated that the jeep was deployed in the election campaign of Sarpanch of Somdar Village on the Salawas Road and thus denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident in question.
In short, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the appellants witnesses, regarding the companymission of accident by the jeep in question, as unreliable but nevertheless relied upon the investigation report as also the charge sheet filed by the police in that regard which was supported by two other witnesses who did number depose before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal then numbered the evidence of the defence witnesses, that the jeep in question was numberhere near the area of the accident.
The respondent Nos.2 3 have relied on the decision of this Court in Rula supra .
The respondent No.1 insurance companypany argued that the companyer numbere purportedly taken for the jeep in question was fraudulent.
RST 4701, which was driven by respondent No.2 at the relevant time.
RJ 196636 at the relevant time, going to Basni from Panwara Phanta and when he reached near Siviya Nada, a green jeep companying at a high speed from Salawas side, hit the motorcycle from back side, as a result of which the appellant fell down and suffered severe injuries including to his right leg which was eventually amputated from above the knee level, has number been doubted.
DW 4 stated that numberinsurance policy was issued on the basis of the said companyer numbere.
That decision will be of numberavail to respondent Nos.2 3.
Further, the Tribunals reasoning, that it did number believe the oral evidence of the parties but had nevertheless answered the issue in favour of the claimant solely on the basis of the police report, on the ground that there was numberreason number to believe the companyclusion arrived at by the police, was flawed and incorrect.
The Tribunal thus held that the vehicle was number insured by the companypany and, therefore, the companypany was number liable.
1,27,000/ but, owing to the purported negligence of the appellant, reduced the amount by half and finally awarded a sum of Rs.
Further, the companycerned development officer, whose signature was on the companyer numbere, had been removed from the respondent No.1 insurance companypany but had in his possession certain companyer numberes, including the relevant companyer numbere.
The Tribunal, however, opined that the accident had been caused by the jeep in question, based on the investigation report filed by the police mentioning that when they seized the jeep after one month of the accident, the jeep bore a scratch on the mudguard of the tyre on the upper footboard on the left side.
The Tribunal then referred to the site map of the accident Exh.2 , to companyclude that the appellant was riding his motorcycle one foot on wrong side from the middle of the road and hence, had companytributed to the accident by being negligent.
The appellant filed an appeal SB Civil Misc.
The deceased was a companystable.
The Tribunal accepted the evidence of witness DW4, the branch manager of the respondent No.1 insurance companypany, that the companypany did number receive any premium under the relevant companyer numbere and had number issued any insurance policy in that regard.
In its judgment dated 22nd November, 2000, the Tribunal discussed the evidence on record in detail.
Besides the said income, the appellant claimed to have earning of Rs.1000/ per month from farming fields.
Mere filing of the charge sheet by the police is number enough.
He claimed 40 permanent disability and 100 functional disability, companytending that his primary livelihood of driving heavy transport vehicles HTVs had been curtailed on account of his amputation, and sought companypensation to the tune of Rs.
Thus, the jeep was number validly insured.
2 and 3 respectively while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
63,500/ to the appellant payable by the respondent Nos.
PW2 Chainaram and PW4 Thanaram , who had taken the appellant to the hospital after the accident, deposed that after the accident, the jeep which caused the accident stopped ahead and they numbered the jeep number in the backlight and further, they heard the drivers name being called out by the passengers in the jeep.
The appellant subsequently filed an application before the Tribunal, Jodhpur, seeking companypensation against the respondents, including the respondent No.1 insurance companypany.
The evidence of these witnesses to the extent they have companysistently stated that when the appellant was riding on his motorcycle bearing No.
Based on the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal took into account the injuries caused to the appellant and calculated companypensation of Rs.
The Tribunal also discarded the version of the appellant PW1 about the details of the vehicle as being number reliable.
The High Court took the view that mere filing of a chargesheet, without any finding of companyviction, was insufficient to prove negligence by respondent Nos.
The Tribunal then found that it was possible that the Development Officer had backdated the companyer numbere and had number deposited the money for issuing a policy with the companypany.
DW 4 had deposed that the companyer numbere was number deposited with the companypany.
They companytend that the appellant did number have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and was negligently driving on the wrong side of the road.
Pertinently, the Cover Note has been issued by the then Development Officer at a point of time when he was still working with respondent No.1 Insurance Company.
11,17,000/. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 denied the accident and the involvement of the jeep in question.
Pertinently, besides mentioning the description of the offending vehicle as a jeep they have also spoken about its companyour green and that it was displaying the Congress Party flags and banners on the side of the jeep.
The Tribunal held that there was numberreason to disagree with the companyclusion of the police.
RST4701 which was driven by respondent No.2 at the relevant time was involved in the accident in question, causing severe injuries to the appellant.
The Tribunal placed reliance upon the companyy of challan Exh.1 , companyy of FIR Exh.32 , Site Map Exhs.3 4 , Jeep Seizure Report Exh.5 , XRay Exh.6 and Injury Report Exh.7 , to opine that these police records gathered during the investigation of the crime number only companyfirmed that an accident had occurred but also indicated the involvement of the offending Jeep No.
RST4701, owned by respondent No.3 and purportedly being driven by respondent No.2 at the time, resulting in serious injuries and ultimately, amputation of his right leg above the knee.
2 and 3 jointly.
Furthermore, numberfinding regarding negligence of the driver of the jeep had been recorded by the Tribunal rather it found that the appellant was negligent while riding his motorcycle.
The Tribunal, however, found that their version of having numbered the jeep number and heard the drivers name seemed to be unnatural.
The possibility of misuse of some companyer numberes lying with him companyld number be ruled out.
Further, the Tribunal sans examination of the witnesses whose statement were recorded by the police in furtherance of the FIR filed in relation to the subject accident companyld number have based its companyclusion merely due to filing of a charge sheet in that regard and without any information as to any companyviction.
The High Court numbered that the Tribunal was number companyvinced about the involvement of the vehicle, despite which it held that involvement was proved.
In other words, their version limited to having numbered the jeep number, has number been accepted.
2 and 3.
2 and 3 driver and owner of the jeep, respectively challenged the Tribunals award by way of SB Civil Misc.
Death took place near a police station.
The Tribunal also relied on the charge sheet Exh.1 filed by the police, wherein it has been stated that the accident was caused by the jeep in question on the basis of statements made by the appellant and other witnesses Roopram, Thanaram and Pratap Singh .
In its judgment dated 5th January, 2017, the High Court companycluded that the Tribunals findings were incorrect, unconvincing and number supported by evidence.
Appeal No.290 of 2001 , before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench.
The Tribunal also accepted the plea of the respondent No.1 insurance companypany that the companyer numbere as regard the offending jeep was fraudulent.
The respondents number2 and 3 had relied on a Cover Note which according to respondent No.1 Insurance Company was fraudulently obtained from the then Development Officer, who was later on sacked by respondent No.1 Insurance Company.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal then adverted to the FIR and the chargesheet filed in respect of the accident naming respondent No.2 as accused.
Even the driving licence produced by the appellant was for a different class of vehicles and number for a motorcycle, which he was riding at the time of the accident.
The Tribunal has absolved the insurance companypany on the finding that numberpremium was received by the insurance companypany number any insurance policy was ever issued by the insurance companypany in relation to the offending vehicle.
Appeal No.273 of 2001 for enhancement whereas respondent Nos.
The companyer numbere had been given unauthorisedly by its then Development Officer, numberpremium had been deposited with the companypany and numberpolicy had been issued in that regard.
The appellant alleges that on or about 10th February, 1990, while he was riding his motorcycle, bearing No.
M. Khanwilkar, J. In the present appeals, the appellant claimant has challenged the judgment dated 5th January, 2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench, in SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.273 of 2001 and 290 of 2001, which set aside the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the Tribunal granting companypensation to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the appellant at the instance of respondent Nos.2 and 3 CHETAN KUMAR Date 2018.04.06 171442 IST Reason driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respectively as also negatived the appellants prayer for enhancement of the companypensation amount.
