REENA MEENA Vs. RAJKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants against the impugned judgment dtd. 16/3/2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No. 1, Kota (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 792/2014, whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that on 26/12/2008, the deceased-Dr. Brij Gopal Meena, while riding his motorcycle, met with a motor accident involving a truck bearing registration No. RJ-14-2G-4220, which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner. An FIR was registered and in pursuance of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending truck. Learned counsel also submits that a claim petition No. 792/2014 was filed by the claimants-appellants before learned Tribunal contending that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending truck and compensation under various heads was claimed by the claimants-appellants. It was further submitted that the deceased who was aged about 41 years, was serving as a Medical Officer under the Government of Rajasthan, and was the sole earning member of the family. Learned counsel contends that the learned Tribunal vide order dtd. 16/3/2018, dismissed the claim petition, while observing that the registration number of the offending truck mentioned in the FIR differed from the registration number reflected in the charge-sheet, thereby, creating inconsistency with regard to the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident. Learned counsel argues that the learned Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition based upon the findings that mere involvement of a vehicle cannot be presumed in the absence of cogent and consistent evidence and also, that filing of a chargesheet by itself is not conclusive proof of negligence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has adopted a technical approach and has decided the claim petition as if it was a criminal trial. It is also submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter be referred as 'Act of 1988') are summary in nature thus, are required to be decided on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and not on strict proof, as required in criminal cases. Learned counsel prays that the matter requires reconsideration by the learned Tribunal after a holistic re-appreciation of the evidence on record.