Rajasthan High Court
CMA/1266/2007 of CHITTAR LAL Vs DINESH KUMAR GURJAR AND ORS on 15 July 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1266/2007 URN: CMA / 2682U / 2007 Chittar Lal S/o Kishanlal aged 55 years, R/o Andhriya Bagh, P.S. Purani Tonk. ----Claimant-Appellant Versus 1. Dinesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Narayan, R/o Villae Bamor 2. Ramrai S/o Shri
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1266/2007
URN: CMA / 2682U / 2007
Chittar Lal S/o Kishanlal aged 55 years, R/o Andhriya Bagh, P.S.
Purani Tonk.
----Claimant-Appellant
Versus
1. Dinesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Narayan, R/o Villae Bamor
2. Ramrai S/o Shri Hazari Lal, R/o Bachi Post Deoli.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Opposite Collectorate, Hospital Road, Tonk.
----Non-Claimants-Respondents
For Appellant(s)
:
Mr. Praveen Jain, Adv. with
Ms. Sunita Choudhary, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Ravindra Kumar Tomar, Adv. for
Insurance Company
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
15/07/2026
1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 657/2005 (titled as Chittar Lal Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Ors.), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the learned Tribunal without discussing the evidence adduced by AW-1-Kishanlal (father of the claimant) and without relying on the documents submitted by the appellant-claimant, has dismissed
(2 of 3) [CMA-1266/2007] the claim petition. Learned counsel further submits that in their written statement, driver and owner of the offending vehicle have also accepted the factum of accident, it is therefore, prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2025 be quashed and set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that except the oral testimony of the claimant-Chittar Lal, no other evidence was produced. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant failed to submit the police challan papers, FIR, site plan, charge-sheet and other relevant documents in support of his claim. Learned counsel contends that photocopies of the documents with regard to the police investigation, charge-sheet, FIR etc. was submitted and not marked as exhibit, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. It is admitted case that, the claimant appeared before learned Tribunal and his statement was recorded by the learned Tribunal. However, no relevant documents in support of the claim, such as FIR, charge-sheet, site plan, notice under Section 133 or any other relevant documents prepared during course of police investigation, was exhibited by the claimant. Therefore, the claim petition and oral evidence of the claimant was not corroborated by any relevant documents prepared by the police during investigation and in such circumstances, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
(3 of 3) [CMA-1266/2007]
6. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to controvert the fact that certain copies of the challan papers were not submitted by the claimant and only photocopies were submitted, therefore, they cannot be marked as exhibit.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that learned Tribunal has not committed any mistake in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J 21/Mohita