1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.505/1997 AJAY KUMAR V/s SHRI BIRJU SINGH & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: APRIL 25, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri K.N. Tiwari, for appellant/claimant. Shri Virendra Singh on behalf of Shri A.K. Bansal, for respondent RSRTC. BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant against the award dated July 5, 1995 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, (for short “the Tribunal) whereby claim petition filed by appellant claimant Ajay Kumar was dismissed. 2. On June 12, 1990, appellant was traveling in a jeep DED 3431 which was coming to Jaipur. The jeep dashed by bus RNP 169 which was being driven on the wrong side of the road causing injuries to five persons including the appellant. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation in other claim petitions by the impugned award but dismissed the claim 2 of the injured appellant on the ground that he did not produce any evidence nor his brother deposed before the Tribunal that he (appellant) sustained injuries while traveling in the said jeep. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition of the injured only on the ground that his brother Vijay Kumar (AW 2) did not state that his younger brother Ajay Kumar was also traveling along with him. During investigation, police recorded statements of injured Ajay Kumar as well as Vijay Kumar (AW 2) mentioning that both were traveling in the jeep at the time of accident. Learned counsel further submitted that there is complete record with him pertaining to injuries sustained by the injured and hence the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh decision after taking into consideration the evidence on the point. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for RSRTC supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has based its findings on the evidence adduced during the enquiry and no interference is called for. 3 5. In view of the rival contentions and on perusal of the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that the appellant who is now 18 years old is said to be 14 years of age at the time of accident and he was not examined before the Tribunal. Though as per the evidence collected during investigation, it appears that he was also traveling in the jeep and sustained injuries. Therefore, the case deserves to be remanded for fresh decision. 6. Accordingly, the impugned award passed in Claim Petition No.42/93 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing and leading evidence, if any. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 22.5.2008. Record be sent back forthwith. 7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Guman Singh), J. Chauhan/