Thawri and ors. Vs. Harji Lal and ors.

Thawri and ors. vs Harji Lal and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 19, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/768821

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/768821
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Prakash Tatia, J.
Decided On: Feb 19, 2004
Case Number: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 282 of 2004
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - The Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove that respondent Harji Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The Tribunal also considered the evidence as well as documents placed on record by the claimants and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the Claims the claimants have stated fa...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thawri and ors.

Advocate Vijay Rajpurohit, Adv.

Respondent

Harji Lal and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2006ACJ2279

Excerpt

- - the tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove that respondent harji lal was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. the tribunal also considered the evidence as well as documents placed on record by the claimants and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the claims the claimants have stated factually wrong facts and they failed to prove any accident from the use of the 'motor vehicle',there fore, the claim petition, which is factually wrong and is also not maintainable, was dismissed by the tribunal. it is clearly mentioned that the tractor was standing and trolley was put on jack and he was repairing the bearing of the trolley......harji lal was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. the tribunal also considered the evidence as well as documents placed on record by the claimants and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the claims the claimants have stated factually wrong facts and they failed to prove any accident from the use of the 'motor vehicle', there fore, the claim petition, which is factually wrong and is also not maintainable, was dismissed by the tribunal.3. learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was oral evidence of the witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve those witnesses. it is also submitted that though there are pleadings in the claim petition itself that the trolley attached to the tractor was on jack and bearing of the trolley broke down and the vehicle was in the process of repairing, still it is accident from the vehicle as the trolley attached to the motor vehicle is a complete vehicle.4. i perused the reasons given in the award. it is clear from the facts of the case that after investigation, the police found that the deceased devilal himself was guilty. the police submitted f.i.r. in criminal case. there is a clear mention in the f.i.r., copy of which is placed on record as an 3 that the deceased devilal was the driver of the tractor. it is clearly mentioned that the tractor was standing and trolley was put on jack and he was repairing the bearing of the trolley. at that time, jack slipped out and the trolley fell upon the deceased devilal. it is also clear that the claimants just to mislead the tribunal, produced only one page of the f.i.r. whereas other documents exposed the claimants.5. in these circumstances, when the deceased devilal died due to the accident when he was repairing the trolley attached to the vehicle, which was not in motion, the tribunal was right in dismissing the claim petition.6. in view of the above, i do not find any force in this appeal. hence, the appeal of the appellants-claimants is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Prakash Tatia, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal is against the award dated 10.12.2003 by which the claim petition of the claimants was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salumbhar (A.DJ. No, 2), Udaipur. Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimants only on the ground that the deceased himself was the driver of the vehicle and because of some problem, the vehicle was stopped. The trolley attached to the vehicle was lifted with the help of jack and deceased was trying to repair the trolley. At that time, the jack slipped out resulting in the accident that caused the injuries to the deceased Devilal and he ultimately died. The Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove that respondent Harji Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The Tribunal also considered the evidence as well as documents placed on record by the claimants and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the Claims the claimants have stated factually wrong facts and they failed to prove any accident from the use of the 'motor vehicle', there fore, the claim petition, which is factually wrong and is also not maintainable, was dismissed by the Tribunal.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there was oral evidence of the witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve those witnesses. It is also submitted that though there are pleadings in the claim petition itself that the trolley attached to the tractor was on jack and bearing of the trolley broke down and the vehicle was in the process of repairing, still it is accident from the vehicle as the trolley attached to the motor vehicle is a complete vehicle.

4. I perused the reasons given in the award. It is clear from the facts of the case that after investigation, the police found that the deceased Devilal himself was guilty. The police submitted F.I.R. in criminal case. There is a clear mention in the F.I.R., copy of which is placed on record as AN 3 that the deceased Devilal was the driver of the tractor. It is clearly mentioned that the tractor was standing and trolley was put on jack and he was repairing the bearing of the trolley. At that time, jack slipped out and the trolley fell upon the deceased Devilal. It is also clear that the claimants just to mislead the Tribunal, produced only one page of the F.I.R. whereas other documents exposed the claimants.

5. In these circumstances, when the deceased Devilal died due to the accident when he was repairing the trolley attached to the vehicle, which was not in motion, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the claim petition.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any force in this appeal. Hence, the appeal of the appellants-claimants is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2004 Same Parties Thawri and ors. vs Harji Lal and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Prakash Tatia, J.

Motor Vehicles