1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T SHANTI LAL Vs. KALU RAM & ANR. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 2151 OF 2007 against the judgment and Award dated 15.4.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , Gulabpura (Bhilwara) in Claim Case No.72/2003. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 14th JANUARY, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, for the appellant. Mr. Devilal R. Vyas, for the respondent. BY THE COURT : The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the judgment dated 15.4.2006 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulabpura (Bhilwara) in Claim Case No.72/2003, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the injured-claimant. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20.7.2002 in the night at around 10.45 p.m. when the claimant-Shanti Lal after completing his work at 'Gulabpura Madira Sangh' was going to Vijaynagar by his Jeep No. RPA-433 and when he reached near the 'gate of Khari river', a roadways bus which was coming from the side of Vijaynagar and was being driven by its driver-Kalu Ram in high speed, rash and negligent manner, dashed with the right mud- guard of the jeep as a result of which, the claimant sustained simple and grievous injuries. During the course of arguments, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the claim petition has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal mainly on the basis that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 13 days. It is submitted that this could not be a ground for rejecting the claim petition. It was urged that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are quasi-civil judicial courts. They have to reach their on finding and on that basis they have to come to the conclusion as regards to the involvement of the vehicle. In this respect police has filed challan against the driver of the concerned roadways bus after investigation, meaning thereby, that the involvement o the vehicle is very much proved by the 3. Investigating Agency but the learned Tribunal has totally ignored this aspect and has not considered the same in its right perspective. It was also contended that on behalf of the claimant eye-witnesses have been produced, who have categorically stated about the involvement of the offending roadways bus. Further, the claimant-appellant himself who got injured in the same accident has narrated full facts and has also explained the delay caused in lodging the FIR and there is no concrete rebuttal from the other side. In that situation, the statement of injured- claimant cannot be ignored outrightly, but the learned Tribunal has not given due weightage to the evidence of the eye-witnesses and on that basis the finding on issue No.1 is perverse and is liable to be quashed. It was also contended that the learned Tribunal has not proceeded as per law. No issue was framed with regard to compensation. The learned Tribunal has made up its mind to dismiss the claim. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the judgment of the learned Tribunal be set 4. aside and the case be sent back for deciding afresh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment stating that the learned Tribunal after discussing the evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the involvement of the vehicle in accident is not proved, therefore, no interference is required. The judgment and order deserves to be maintained and the appeal itself may kindly be dismissed. I have considered the rival contention of both the sides and perused the finding and conclusion drawn thereon and also the record of the case. Before adverting to the contentions, it would be better to appreciate the evidence led by the appellant's side before the learned Tribunal. __________ and ____________ stated that on _______ accident occurred wherein he got injured. He lodged FIR on ________ at Police Station, ____________. The claimant has narrated the cause behind the delay in lodging the FIR. In support of his contention, Shri __________ and _____________ also 5. appeared before the learned Tribunal. They also stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the roadways bus. It is revealed from the record that after investigation the police has filed challan against the roadways bus driver, that prima facie shows that the involvement of the vehicle is proved. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the involvement of the vehicle is not proved, is not sustainable. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition merely on the basis of delayed lodging of the FIR, which to my mind is not justified. I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal ought to have concluded the matter after recording its own satisfaction by perusing the evidence and the material available on the record, thus, from that point of view the finding of the learned Tribunal is not tenable and it requires re-consideration. Further, it is also pertinent to note that no issue has been framed with regard to compensation. Thus, on the basis of the overall discussion, I think it 6. fit to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for deciding it afresh after hearing the parties. It is made clear that the learned Tribunal shall not be influenced by the observations made in the order and the Tribunal is free to conclude the matter as per law after framing additional issue, if it thinks so after giving opportunity to lead evidence to both the sides. In the result, the judgment of the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside, the appeal is partly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulabpura (Bhilwara) for afresh hearing on merits of the case. ( MANAK MOHTA ), J. Sanjay/-