National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Mamta And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 12898 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 68/2014

National Insurance Co. Ltd, Suratgarh through Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur Regional Office: 3-4 Floor, Sun Tower, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Mamta w/o Shri Tekchand @ Deepchand, b/c Bhat, r/o Gali No. 11 Nai Abadi, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh

2. Dinesh s/o Shri Tekchand @ Deepchand, b/c Bhat, minor through mother Smt. Mamta, r/o Gali No. 11 Nai Abadi, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh

3. Tulsi Ram s/o Shri Kishan Lal, b/c Bhat, r/o Gali No. 11 Nai Abadi, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh

4. Shanti Devi w/o Shri Tulsi Ram, b/c Bhat r/o Gali No. 11 Nai Abadi, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh claimants

5. Dayaram s/o Shri Ratiram, b/c Chimpa r/o Bhagsar, Tehsil Pilibanga District Hanumangarh Driver & Owner of Jeep No. RJ-14/2C-6448

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shubhankar Johari For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.C. Joshi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

18/08/2021

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -

Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated

11.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Hanumangarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 309/2009,

whereby, an amount of Rs. 7,38,000/- was awarded as

(2 of 4) [CMA-68/2014]

compensation to the respondent/claimants on account of the

death of Shri Tekchand in the accident which occurred on

14.06.2009.

The learned Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties

decided the claim petition of the claimant - respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company

vehemently argued that the findings of the Tribunal recorded on

Issue No. 1 is erroneous. The vehicle insured with the appellant -

Insurance Company was falsely implicated in the present case just

to get the compensation. He further submits that a bare perusal of

the Site Plan (Exp. 3) prepared by the police during the course of

investigation, shows that the Jeep was being driven by its driver

on the correct side and there was no question that he was driving

the jeep negligently and caused the accident. He submits that the

place of accident is shown as mark 'X' is on the right side, where it

is shown that there is a wire fencing around an agriculture field

and the same was reported to be in the broken condition. He

further submits that on a close scrutiny of Site Plan (Exp. 3) and

Site Plan (Exp. 4) - suggests that Tekchand died on account of

the motor-cycle having slipped and just to get the compensation,

the present vehicle jeep was framed in this case.

Learned counsel further submits that even as per the

statement of Heera Lal, who accompanied Tek Chand, did not

specifically state that Tekchand died because of the collision with

the offending jeep. He further submits that Shubhash, to whom

deceased Tekchand and Heera Lal had gone to meet was not

produced in the witness box. Therefore, the fact of accident was

not proved by the cogent evidence and involvement of the insured

(3 of 4) [CMA-68/2014]

jeep with the appellants was shown for the purpose of getting the

compensation.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent

submits that as per the Site Report (Exp. 3) it becomes clear that

the deceased Tekchand @ Deepchand at the time of accident was

standing with Heera Lal and the offending jeep first hit the motor-

cycle, and then Tekchand who was standing nearby the motor-

cycle. Tekchand sustained injuries in the accident and while taking

to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained. He further

submits that in reply to the notice received by Daya Ram driver-

owner of the jeep under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, he has stated

that at the time of accident the jeep was being driven by him. The

police after investigation also filed charge-sheet against the

driver-owner of the jeep. He, therefore, submits that finding of

fact recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 1, does not call

for any interference, the same has rightly been decided in favour

of the claimants after evaluating the evidence brought on record.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the judgment and award dated 11.11.2013 as well as

other relevant record of the case.

A close reading of the site plan Exp. 3 shows that the

accidental side is on the right side of the road and the jeep was

being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner in the

wrong side. For the simple reason that there was no occasion for

the jeep driver to have gone on the extreme right side of the road

as the correct side for plying the vehicle i.e. jeep was on the left

side of the road and if the collision had taken place at the place

mark 'X' as shown in the site plan which was noted on the

extreme right side of the road. The driver was negligent and the

(4 of 4) [CMA-68/2014]

involvement of the jeep cannot be doubted in the facts and

circumstances of the case as the police after investigation filed

charge-sheet against the owner of the jeep and the fact of

accident was also corroborated in the criminal proceedings.

Further in reply to the notice received under Section 133 of the

M.V. Act, the owner of the jeep admitted the fact of involvement of

the jeep in the accident. Besides this, the testimony of AW-2

Heera Lal fully corroborated the involvement of the jeep in the

accident which occurred on 14.06.2009.

Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on Issue

No. 1, is just, proper and correct. The involvement of the jeep

insured with the present appellants stands proved and the

argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the jeep

was falsely implicated is noted to be rejected.

In view of the discussions made above, the appeal of

appellant - Insurance Company is bereft of merit, therefore, the

same is dismissed.

The interim order granted by this Court stands vacated and

the Tribunal is directed to pay the amount awarded at the earliest

convenience.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

229-payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)