VIMLA AND ORS. Vs. SWARN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 6.4.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Laxmangarh, District Alwar, in Claim Case No. 38/33/2003.

(2.) The brief facts noticed are that on 20.10.2002 at about 12:00 noon one Rajaram, who was sitting on the back seat of the motorcycle of Swarn Singh bearing No. RJ5 -4M -1944, was going with him to Halka Ghat from Barodamev. As alleged, Swarn Singh was driving the motorcycle in high speed, in rash and negligent manner, consequent whereto, Swarn Singh lost balance and the motorcycle fell down and Rajaram received injuries. Later, during the course of his treatment, Rajaram died on 6.11.2002 in the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Claim was filed before the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal disbelieving the version of claimants, rejected the claim, which has been assailed herein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse. He contended that though the Tribunal accepts that the accident had taken place, but has come to the conclusion that deceased Rajaram, who died on 6.11.2002, did not receive grievous injuries, and even on the day of the accident he was dropped at his residence by Swarn Singh, but the learned counsel contends that merely because Swarn Singh dropped Rajaram at his home is no basis to arrive at the conclusion that Rajaram did not die because of the said accident. He further contended that the Post Mortem Report (Ex. 7) which is a prime document, clearly states that the injury caused was on account of accident on road, and Rajaram died on account of the injuries suffered. He further contends that the Medical Jurist of the S.M.S. Hospital has given an opinion that the cause of death of Rajaram is "coma due to head injury, and it is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature". He further contended that Inquest Report, which is also placed on record, also proves that on account of the said accident the deceased received injuries and thereafter died in the hospital. He further contended that all other evidence lead to an irresistible conclusion that deceased Rajaram got seriously injured and consequently died later. He further contended that the deceased had taken treatment from local doctors and when his condition became serious, he was referred to the S.M.S. Hospital, he was admitted in the hospital and later he died. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment rendered by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Hajarilal and Others v/s. Lakhanpratap and Others : 2006 ACJ 1019, and contends that the order of Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter may either be decided by this court on merits, or restored to the Tribunal for allowing just and fair compensation.