United India Insurance Company ... vs Dhudaram Jat
2021 Latest Caselaw 13175 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 593/2021

United India Insurance Company Limited, Panchshati Circle, Sardulganj, Bikaner Through Manager, Tp Hub, 2Nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati N-Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus

1. Dhudaram Jat S/o Moolram Jat, Village Sadhuna, Tehsil And District Bikaner

2. Rami W/o Dhundaram, Village Sadhuna, Tehsil And Dis.

Bikaner

3. Shiv Singh S/o Vijay Singh, In Front Of Samata Bhawan, Ward No. 29, Nokha Mandi, Tehsil Nokha, Dis. Bikaner

4. Sitaram Bishnoi S/o Richhpal Bishnoi, Village Roda, Tehsil Nokha, Dis. Bikaner

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 592/2021 United India Insurance Company Limited, Panchshati Circle, Sardulganj, Bikaner Through Manager, Tp Hub, 2Nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati-N-Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus

1. Jashoda W/o Ramesh, Village Nokha, Tehsil Nokha, Dis.

Bikaner

2. Lichhuram S/o Chandaram, Village Nokha, Tehsil Nokha, Dis. Bikaner

3. Hastu Devi W/o Lichhuram, Village Nokha, Tehsil Nokha, Dis. Bikaner

4. Sarita S/o Ramesh, Village Nokha, Tehsil Nokha, Dis.

Bikaner

5. Shiv Singh S/o Vijay Singh, In Front Of Samata Bhawan, Ward No. 29, Nokha Mandi, Tehsil Nokha, Dis. Bikaner

6. Sitaram Bishnoi S/o Richhpal Bishnoi, Village Roda, Tehsil Nokha, Dis. Bikaner

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar with Mr. Pushkar Timani.

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI



                                           (2 of 4)                  [CMA-593/2021]

                                     Order

27/08/2021

These appeals are directed against the judgment and awards

dated 22.02.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bikaner, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the

tune of Rs.19,20,000/- in the case of Dhudaram and

Rs.14,81,000/- in the case of Smt. Jashoda alongwith interest @

7% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 06.05.2016.

The applications for compensation were filed by the

claimants inter alia with the submissions that on 17.12.2015

Ramkishan and Ramesh were riding on a motorcycle, when at

around 09:30 p.m., the offending vehicle, which was being driven

rashly and negligently, came from the wrong side and struck the

motorcycle resulting in grievous injurious to both Ramkishan and

Ramesh, to which they succumbed.

On account of the untimely death of both Ramkishan and

Ramesh compensation was sought.

Reply to the applications was filed by owner and driver of the

vehicle denying that the accident occur on account of any

negligence of the driver of the vehicle and in the alternate

submitted that liability was that of the Insurance Company.

The appellant - Insurance Company filed its reply and took

defence that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective

driving licence, the policy conditions have been violated and,

therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable.

Based on the averments of the parties, the Tribunal framed

five issues. On behalf of the claimants, five witnesses were

examined and 51 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the

Insurance Company, one witness was produced.

(3 of 4) [CMA-593/2021]

After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion

that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by

driver of the insured vehicle and based on the evidence, which

came on record, awarded compensation as noticed hereinbefore.

Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company

made submissions that the insured vehicle was not involved in the

accident and the same has been wrongly implicated by the

claimants and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable.

It is submitted that the FIR was lodged by one - Madanlal

uncle of deceased - Ramesh Kumar, however, he was not

produced as witness. Further, the witness (AW-2) - Jetharam,

who was produced as eye witness, his statement could not be

relied on and, therefore, apparently the finding recorded by the

Tribunal in this regard deserves to be set aside and the

applications for compensation deserve to be rejected.

Learned counsel appearing on caveat for respondent No.1 -

Dhudaram & Ors. supported the award impugned.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the judgment impugned as well

as the record of the Tribunal.

It was the case of the applicants that the deceased -

Ramkishan and Ramesh were riding on the motorcycle and

suffered the accident from the insured vehicle a pick up, which

was coming from the wrong side, struck the motorcycle resulting

in grievous injuries to both Ramkishan and Ramesh, to which they

succumbed. The first version i.e. the FIR lodged by Madanlal,

though did not indicate the registration number of the vehicle,

however, it was specifically indicated that the accident occurred

from a pick up. The first informant - Madanlal did not claim that

(4 of 4) [CMA-593/2021]

he was eye witness to the accident and, therefore, even if the said

first informant - Madanlal has not been produced by the claimants,

the same has no implication at all.

Jetharam - (AW-2) clearly made averments that he saw the

accident, wherein, the insured vehicle was being driven, rashly

and negligently, struck the motorcycle and that he noted down the

number of the pick up.

No material cross-examination of the said witness was done

to discredit his evidence except for giving him a general

suggestion that he was telling lies and that he had not seen the

accident.

A look at the statement of (AW-2) - Jetharam and the nature

of cross-examination, which has been conducted, it cannot be said

that the said witness (AW-2) - Jetharam was, wrongly, believed by

the Tribunal.

In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellant seeking to contend that the insured vehicle was,

wrongly implicated has no substance, the same is, therefore,

rejected. No other aspect was argued.

In view of above discussion, there is no substance in these

appeals, the same are, therefore, dismissed.

The record of the Tribunal be sent back immediately.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 15-16-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)