LADI DEVI Vs. TEJ KARAN VERMA
LAWS(RAJ)-2013-11-46
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on November 26,2013

Ladi Devi Appellant
VERSUS
Tej Karan Verma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE appellant-claimants are aggrieved by the award dated 23.3.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that according to the claimants, on 16.12.2002 Ladi Devi was walking on the correct side of the road while she was coming back home from bazar. However, a scooter being driven rashly and negligently, bearing registration No.RJ14-19M-3539, came and struck her. Consequently, she suffered injuries on her head. Initially the claim petition was filed by Ladi Devi herself, for the injuries suffered by her in the vehicular accident. However, during the pendency of the claim petition, she expired on 4.3.2005. Thereafter, her legal representatives were brought on record. In order to establish their case Bhura Ram alias Bhanwar Lal alias Bhonri Lal, and Sita Ram were examined as witnesses. The claimants also submitted twenty documents. On the other hand the respondents neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by award dated 23.3.2012, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal before this Court. Mr. S.L. Kumawat, learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that despite the admission made by owner of the vehicle in his reply to the notice given under Section 133, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Secondly the large number of medical bills clearly prove that Ladi Devi was continuously under medical treatment from 16.2.2002 till her death on 4.3.2005. Therefore, the claimants had succeeded in establishing the fact that Ladi Devi had met with an accident with the offending vehicle, and had died due to the injuries suffered in the vehicular accident. But despite these facts being proven, the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel, and perused the impugned award.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.