Usha Devi vs Raju Puri
2021 Latest Caselaw 12789 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 28/2021

Cholamandalam Ms General Ins Co. Ltd., Jodhpur Office At K.p. Tower, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur Through Its Authorized Representative.

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Usha Devi previous wife of late Shri kailash Chandra present wife of Shri Sunil Rathi.

2. Prithvi Raj S/o Late Sh. Kailash Chandra (Minor),, Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Usha Devi. Both Residents Of Village Pokhran,district Jaisalmer.

3. Mishri Lal S/o Bakshi Ram Maheshwari, R/o Village Ghewara Via Tinwari, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

(Claimants)

4. Raju Puri S/o Bhopal Puri Goswami, (So Called Driver).

5. Dinesh Puri S/o Bhopal Puri Goswami, (Owner).

Both Residents Of Village Tilwasni, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.

(Non-applicants No.1 & 2)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1887/2020

1. Usha Devi W/o Late Kailash Chandra, Aged About 37 Years.

2. Prithvi Raj S/o Late Sh. Kailash Chandra, Aged About 8 Years.

3. Mishri Lal S/o Bakshi Ram, Aged About 72 Years.

All By Caste Maheshwari, R/o Ghevda Vaya Tiwari, Osiyan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

(Appellant No. 2, being minor through appellant No.1) (claimant)

----Appellants Versus

1. Raju Puri S/o Sh. Bhopal Puri, R/o Tilawasni, Bilara, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                             (Driver)



                                             (2 of 6)                  [CMA-28/2021]

2. Dinesh Puri S/o Sh. Bhopal Puri, R/o Tilawasni, Bilara, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

(Owner).

3. Chola Mandalam M.s. General Insurance Co. Ltd., H.o. -

Darehouse, Iind Floor, 234, N.s.c. Bose Road, Chennai 600001.

(Insurance Co.).

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas.

For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Rajesh Panwar.



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                 Judgment

16/08/2021

Learned counsel for the appellants in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal

No.1887/2020 prays for dispensing with service on respondent

No.1 & 2 at his own risk and cost.

Ordered accordingly.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

above appeals are being heard and disposed of at this stage by

this common order as the same arise out of a common judgment

passed by the Tribunal.

The instant appeals arise out of judgment dated 18.08.2020

passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Jodhpur in Motor

Accident Claim Case No.128/2014 (NCV No.1718/2014), whereby

the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants

and awarded a sum of Rs.9,83,950/- as compensation with an

interest @ 9% p.a.

The Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the

evidence brought on record decided the claim petition. The claim

petition was filed on account of death of one Shri Kailash Chandra

(3 of 6) [CMA-28/2021]

in the accident which occurred on 30.11.2013 at 10:00 am. In

the said accident, Kailash Chandra sustained multiple injuries and

ultimately, during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the

injuries. In these circumstances, claim petition was preferred.

Assailing the validity of the judgment dated 18.08.2020, Mr.

Jagdish Chandra Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle (Crane)

was being driven by its owner Dinesh Puri. He submits that since

the owner Dinesh Puri was not holding a requisite license at the

time of the accident, therefore, the insurance company is not

liable to pay the compensation. He, therefore, submits that since

the vehicle was being driven by the owner/ driver himself without

having the requisite driving license at the time of the accident, the

insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Learned

counsel fairly submits that there is no pleading to the effect that

driver Dinesh Puri was replaced by his brother Raju Puri.

The second contention of learned counsel for the insurance

company before this court is that while calculating the

dependency, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact

that as per the statement of Smt. Usha Devi wife of the deceased,

she got remarried with one Sunil Rathi, therefore, calculating her

dependency in the present case is not correct. He further submits

that during the pendency of the claim petition, Smt. Kanta Devi

(mother of the deceased) has also expired. Further, there is

nothing on record which shows that Mishri Lal, father of the

deceased, was dependent on the deceased. Thus, learned counsel

submits that the Tribunal has committed an error while deducting

amount to the tune of 1/4 towards personal expenses considering

total number of four dependents in the present case.

(4 of 6) [CMA-28/2021]

Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel appearing for

the claimants submits that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the

facts which were brought on record, as in the challan papers filed

by the investigating agency, Raju Puri was stated to be driver of

the offending vehicle, therefore, the insurance company was

correctly fastened with the liability of payment of compensation in

the present case. He further submits that at the time of death,

claimants Smt. Usha Devi, Prithvi Raj and Mishri Lal were

dependents of deceased and the Tribunal in its judgment dated

18.08.2020 rightly calculated the dependency and correctly

deducted 1/4 amount in the present case.

While prosecuting the appeal of the appellants-claimants,

he further submits that the Tribunal committed error while taking

into consideration monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,836/-

per month only despite the fact that it was brought on record that

the deceased was serving in a shop along with one Suresh

Chandra and was earning Rs.6000/- per month besides other

income which he was earning by working as an electrician. He,

therefore, submits that the compensation in the present case is

liable to be enhanced suitably.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar, gone

through the judgment dated 18.08.2020 passed by the Tribunal as

also perused relevant record of the case.

The fact that the deceased Kailash Chandra died in the

accident on 30.11.2013 is established from record and the

accident occurred because of the offending vehicle being driven by

Raju Puri. It is also noted that the charge sheet was filed by the

police discloses the name of Raju Puri who was driving the

offending vehicle at the time of the accident. There is no pleading

(5 of 6) [CMA-28/2021]

on behalf of the insurance company to fortify the fact that the

offending vehicle was being driven by Dinesh Puri who was not

having driving license. Therefore, the findings arrived by the

Tribunal that the insurance company is liable to pay the

compensation does not suffer from any infirmity.

So far as the contention of the counsel on behalf of the

insurance company that the Tribunal has committed an error in

deducting the amount to the tune of 1/4th on the account of the

fact that wife of the deceased remarried, mother of the deceased

expired during the pendency of the claim petition and there is no

evidence to the effect that father of the deceased was dependent

upon the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into

consideration the evidence brought on record and pleadings to

that effect and has deliberated the same in the judgment. This

court does not find any contrary evidence showing that four

persons named in preceding para were not dependents on the

deceased Kailash Chandra. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the

Tribunal does not require any interference by this court in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

As far as the contention of learned counsel for the claimants

that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration monthly income

of the deceased as Rs.6000/- is concerned, it is noted that the

claimants have not been able to prove the salary certificate issued

by the employer as the employer was not produced as a witness,

therefore, veracity of salary certificate could not be established

beyond doubt. The Tribunal has thus rightly taken into

consideration monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4836/- per

month. Thus, finding on this issue also calls for no interference by

this court.

(6 of 6) [CMA-28/2021]

In view of the discussions made above, the instant appeals

filed by the insurance company as well as the appellants-claimants

do not warrant any interference by this court.

Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed. The

judgment dated 18.08.2020, passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Jodhpur-I in claim Case No.128/2014 is affirmed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

2 & 3 -Anil Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)