1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.CIVIL MI SC. APPEAL No.1037/ 2000 Smt.Narmada Devi & Ors. vs. Shri Rajesh Yadav & Ors. 04.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE G.S. SARRAF * * * Mr.Vinay Mathur on behalf of Mr.Sandeep Mathur, for the appellants. Mr.Manish Sharma, for the respondent no.2. * * * The claimants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 13.4.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in motor accident claim case no.539/ 1999. The brief facts as narrated in the claim petition are that on 9.12.1998 one Sua Lal was going by a motorcycle RJ-14-20M 1910 as pillion rider which was driven by his son Rajesh Yadav who is the respondent no.1. They were going from Satellite Hospital, Bani Park, Jaipur towards their house at Jhotwara. When they reached a little ahead of Barafkhana the motorcycle skidded on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent no.1 as a result of which Sua Lal fell down and suffered a number of injuries. He was immediately taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he succumbed to the injuries on 20.12.1998. FIR was lodged and after usual investigation a challan was filed against the respondent no.1 under Sections 279, 304A IPC. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.10,02,000/ - as compensation under different heads. The respondent no.2 filed written-statement. Following issues were framed. '' {1} आया Ĥưगत वाहन सं. आर.जे.14-20 एम-1910 के चालक ͪवप¢ी संÉया के Ʈारा Ǒदनांक: 9.12.98 को 12.30 दोपहर झोटवाड़ा रोड़ पर, बफ[ खाना के पास जयपुर मɅ उƠ वाहन को उपे¢ा/उतावलेपन से चलाकर कȧ गई दुघ[टना मɅ आई चोटɉ के पǐरणामèवǾप सुवालाल कȧ मृ×यु हुई? {2} आया उƠ वाहन चालक तब उƠ वाहन èवामी ͪवप¢ी सं.1 के Ǔनयोजन मɅ होकर उसी के Ǒहताथ[ एवं लाभाथ[ काय[ कर रहा था? {3} आया ͪवप¢ी सं.2 बीमा कंपनी Ʈारा अपने ͧलͨखत कथन कȧ Ĥारिàभक आपͪƣयɉ एवं ͪवशेष कथन के मƧेनजर बीमा कंपनी अपने दाǓय×व से मुƠ हो सकती है नहȣं तो इसका Ĥभाव? {4} आया दावेदार अपने दावे/दावा मɅ अंͩकत Ĥưगत राͧश या अÛय कोई Ûयाय सàमत राͧश पा सका है हाँ तो कौन-कौन दावेदार ͩकतनी-ͩकनती राͧश, ͩकस-ͩकस ͪवप¢ी से एवं ͩकस Ĥकार से पास सकते हɇ? {5} अनुतोष?” 2 The claimants examined Narmada Devi AW.1, Chhotu Lal AW.2, Bhagwan Das Kumawat AW.3 and Gyarsilal Meena AW.4 and produced several documents. Learned Tribunal decided Issue no.1 and other Issues against the claimants and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved, the claimants have filed this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the claimants appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no.2. The FIR, a copy of which is Ex.1, has been lodged after a delay of eleven days from the date of the accident. No reason whatsoever has been offered for this long delay. The FIR has been lodged by Chhotu Lal AW.2 who is the younger brother of the deceased Sua Lal. Chhotu Lal AW.2 is not an eye-witness. In the FIR the number of the motorcycle and the manner in which the accident occurred have been stated but in cross- examination Chhotu Lal AW.2. states “ मुझे जानकारȣ नहȣं है सुवा लाल कȧ मृ×यु èकूटर से हुई या मोटर साइͩकल से“. Neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded by learned Tribunal Chhotu Lal AW.2 discloses the name of the person who informed him about the occurrence. Two eye witnesses Bhagwan Das AW.3 and Gyarsilal Meena AW.4 have been examined but their names do not find place in the FIR. The driver of the motorcycle Rajesh Yadav who is the respondent no.1 is the son of the deceased Sua lal. When Rajesh Yadav took his father Sua Lal to the hospital then he stated there that the accident occurred as the scooter skidded which is clear from Ex.A1. The motorcycle appears to have been introduced lateron. Learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue no.1 has discussed the entire evidence in detail. I find myself in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal. There is thus no merit in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. ( G.S. SARRAF), J. 3