Jaidev Vs. Dev Singh and anr.

motor vehicles act, 1988 - section 168--accidents claim--defence that vehicle in dispute was not involved in the accident as the number of vehicle mentioned in the fir was different--not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case--the police investigated the offence and filed challan against the driver of the appellant's jeep wherein they prepared the site report and obtained the mto report for the appellant's vehicle--the appellant was given notice under section 133 of the motor vehicles act and registration certificate and medical certificate of the victim were obtained by the independent agency--it is admitted by the appellant's driver that at the relevant time, the vehicle of the appellant with his driver was there on the spot where the victim was injured--there may be possibility of confusion in mentioning the vehicle number in the fir because of the reason that there being similarity in the number of vehicles mentioned in the fir and the vehicle found involved in the accident--acquittal of the appellant's driver is not relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal because of the reason that the tribunal after considering the evidence on record reached to the independent conclusion that the appellant's jeep was involved. - labour & servicesappointment: [shiv kumar sharma, ashok parihar & k.s. rathore, jj] merit list rajasthan secondary education act (42 of 1957), section 28 & rajasthan board of secondary education rules, rule 20 - held, improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for drawing the merit list of candidate for appointment to post of teacher. circular issued by the director of primary & secondary education ousting such candidate from consideration in merit list is illegal and without jurisdiction. - 5. i considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as the statement of victim......it is also submitted that the claimant in his statement before the tribunal very specifically admitted that the number given in the fir of the vehicle which is rj 13c 0155 is the vehicle by which the accident was caused. it is submitted that in fact, the driver of the appellant's jeep merely helped the victim as he found the victim sitting injured after the accident, which was caused by jeep no. rj 13 c 0155 and he took the victim to his house. 4. it is also submitted that the claimant could not note down the number of the vehicle from which the accident was caused and, therefore, he falsely implicated the appellant's vehicle.5. i considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as the statement of victim.6. it is relevant to mention here that the police investigated the offence and filed challan against the driver of the appellant's jeep wherein they prepared the site report and obtained the mto report for the appellant's vehicle. the appellant was given notice under section 133 of the motor vehicles act and registration certificate and medical certificate of the victim were obtained by the independent agency.7. the appellant's witness naw1 yajdev though stated that he merely helped the victim by taking the victim to his house by putting the victim in jeep and also stated that the accident was occurred by the jeep no. 0155 but his statement cannot be relied upon in toto. it is admitted by the appellant's driver that at the relevant time, the vehicle of the appellant with his driver was there on the spot where the victim was injured. there may be possibility of confusion in mentioning the vehicle number in the fir because of the reason that there being similarity in the number of vehicles mentioned in the fir and the vehicle found involved in the accident.8. acquittal of the appellant's driver is not relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal because of the reason that the tribunal after considering.....