Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Guddi Kanwar on 17 August, 2021

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 550/2021

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Pal Road, Jodhpur Through Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2Nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati N-Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Guddi Kanwar W/o Late Shri Hari Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Devtaon Ki Dhani, Bhavad, Tehsil Bavadi, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Indra Singh S/o Late Shri Hari Singh, By Caste Rajput, Minor, Through Mother Smt. Guddi Kanwar, R/o Devtaon Ki Dhani, Bhavad, Tehsil Bavadi, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Bhawani Singh S/o Late Shri Hari Singh, By Caste Rajput, Minor, Through Mother Smt. Guddi Kanwar, R/o Devtaon Ki Dhani, Bhavad, Tehsil Bavadi, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).

4. Smt. Ratan Kanwar W/o Akhe Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Devtaon Ki Dhani, Bhavad, Tehsil Bavadi, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).

(Claimants)

5. Nop Singh Shekhawat S/o Hanuman Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Jogania Beekan, Tehsil Ratangarh, Distt. Churu (Raj.).

(Driver)

6. Gopiram S/o Bagdaram @ Bardaram @ Bagaduram, By Caste Vishnoi, R/o House No. 721, Ward No. 51, Agrasen Circle, Modern Market, Bikaner.

(Owner)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari with Mr. Lalit Parihar.

For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. G.S.Rathore.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
                           Judgment

17/08/2021

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

present appeal is being heard and decided finally at this stage

itself.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant

Insurance Company against the judgment dated 05.02.2021

passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in

(2 of 5) [CMA-550/2021]

Motor Accident Claim Case No.24/2017 (NCV No.24/2017),

whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the

respondents-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.12,95,920/- as

compensation with an interest @ 6% p.a.

The Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the

evidence brought on record decided the claim petition. A claim

petition was filed on account of death of one Shri Hari Singh in the

accident which occurred on 21.04.2016. In the said accident, the

deceased sustained fatal injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to

the injuries.

Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has

vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on

issue No.2 are erroneous. He submits that at the time of the

accident, permit for plying the bus was not in currency and the

bus was being plied dehors the permit. Therefore, insurance

company is not liable to compensate the respondents- claimants

in the present case. It is also contended that driver of the bus was

not holding a requisite license at the time of the accident which is

in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy,

therefore, he prays that the insurance company cannot be

fastened with the liability to pay the compensation to the

respondents-claimants.

Per contra, Mr. G.S.Rathore, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents- claimants submits that findings of the tribunal on

issue No.2 do not suffer from any infirmity as bus No.RJ-07PA-

5244 was being plied on Sikar- Jodhpur Route being engaged on

contract with Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

(hereinafter referred to as 'RSRTC'). He submits that as per Exp.9,

the vehicle involved in the accident was engaged with RSRTC and

(3 of 5) [CMA-550/2021]

therefore, there is no question of requirement of permit in the

present case. Learned counsel further submits that in reply to the

notice under section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner of

the bus disclosed the fact that on the date of the accident, the

driver Nop Singh Shekhawat was driving the bus and same was

also engaged on contract with RSRTC. He, therefore, submits that

the findings recorded by the tribunal are perfectly just and proper.

So far as the argument advanced by learned counsel for the

appellant that the driver of the bus was not possessing a valid and

requisite license at the time of the accident is concerned, it is

submitted by the counsel that this contention is not fortified from

any fact as neither anything was averred by the appellant

Insurance Company in reply to the claim petition nor anything

came on record in the statement of Ravi Mehta (an employee of

appellant) who appeared before the tribunal as NAW1 with regard

to the fact that driver of the bus was not having a requisite

license. He, therefore, submits that the judgment and award

dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Tribunal does not call for any

interference by this court and the same may be upheld.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar, gone

through the judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Tribunal as

also perused relevant record of the case.

The Tribunal has deliberated on issue No.2 and has come to

the conclusion that since the bus was engaged with RSRTC on

contract, therefore, there was no requirement of any permit. The

findings recorded by the tribunal on issue No.2 are reproduced as

under:-

"19- bl rudh esa vizkFkhZx.k dks viuh vkifRr;ka izekf.kr djuh FkhA chek daiuh dh vksj ls vius tokc esa eq[; vkifRr iz'uxr okgu ds ijfeV ds laca/k esa mBkbZ xbZ gSA

(4 of 5) [CMA-550/2021]

bl laca/k esa chek daiuh dh vksj ls ,u-,-MCY;w 1 ds :i esa jfo esgrk dks is'k dj ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gSA ftlus eq[; ijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gS fd okgu la[;k vkj-ts- 07 ih-,- 5244 mudh chek daiuh ls fnukad 13-04-2016 ls 12-04-2017 rd dh vof/k ds fy, chfer FkkA oDr nq?kZVuk iz'uxr okgu dk ijfeV ugha FkkA ijfeV is'k djus ds fy, okgu Lokeh dh chekdaiuh }kjk uksfVl fn;k x;k FkkA ckotwn uksfVl okgu Lokeh ds }kjk ijfeV is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA oDr nq?kZVuk iz'uxr okgu dk ijfeV ugha gksus ls chek daiuh {kfriwfrZ vnk;xh ds fy, mRrjnk;h ugha gSA izn'kZ ,u,1 ls izn'kZ ,u-,- 4 chek ikaWfylh] uksfVl o vU; nLrkost gSA 20- vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d o nks dh vksj ls dh xbZ ftjg esa xokg us dFku fd;k gS fd mls tkudkjh ugha gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; cl jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe ls vuqcaf/kr gksA 21- izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls dh xbZ ftjg esa xokg us dFku fd;k gS fd chek daiuh us okgu Lokeh dks uksfVl fn;s tkus ds vykok ijfeV ds laca/k esa vU; dksbZ tkap ugha dhA 22- bl izdkj chek daiuh us ijfeV ds laca/k esa ifjogu dk;kZy; ls dksbZ tkap ugha djokbZA okgu jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe ls vuqcaf/kr gksus dh lk{; i=koyh ij vkbZ gSA ijUrq chek daiuh us jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe ls Hkh ijfeV ds laca/k esa dksbZ vuqla/kku ugha fd;k gSA vr% ijfeV ds laca/k esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA chek daiuh dh vksj ls vU; dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA ifj.kker% rudh la[;k rhu chek daiuh ds fo:) fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA"

Further, the fact that driver of the bus was not having

requisite driving license at the time of accident is also not borne

out from the record as neither anything has been stated by the

appellant Insurance Company in reply to the claim petition nor

anything has been stated by its employee Ravi Mehta who

appeared before the Tribunal as NAW1, therefore, there is no

reason for this court to presume that the driver of the bus was not

having a requisite license at the time of the accident.

In view of the discussions made above, it is held that the

judgment passed by Judge, Motor accident Claims Tribunal-I,

Jodhpur in MAC Case No.24/2017 does not suffer any infirmity and

(5 of 5) [CMA-550/2021]