United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Veena Tak And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 7442 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1341/2011

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, Sahara
Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur and having its Branch Office at
Opposite SBBJ Lohagar1 Road, Ajmer
                                                ----Appellant/Non-Claimant
                                   Versus
1. Smt Veena Tak W/o Shri Shyamsunder, aged about 42 years,
R/o House No.705/29, Gehloto ki Doongri, Behind Meo College,
Dholabhata, Ajmer.
                                                    ----Respondent/Claimant

2. Deepak Chauhan S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged about 22 years, R/o Shiv Nagar, Gali No.1, Faysagar Road, Ajmer. (Driver of Motorcycle No.RJ01-SF-4603)

3. Ravi Rathore S/o Shri Ishwarlal, aged about 23 years, R/o House No.615/44, Shiv Nagar, Gali No.1, Fayasagar Road, Ajmer.

(Registered Owner of Motorcycle No.RJ 01-SF-4603) Respondents/Non-claimants

For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

09/12/2021

Present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment

and award dated 04.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Ajmer in Motor Accident Claim Case No.131/2010,

whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,21,000/- in

favour of the respondent - claimant on account of the injuries

sustained by her in the accident occurred on 19.01.2009. Learned

Tribunal after framing issues evaluating the evidence on record

(2 of 3) [CMA-1341/2011]

and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim

in favour of the respondent - claimant.

The appeal has been preferred by the appellant -

Insurance Company on various counts but while arguing the

appeal learned counsel for the appellant has confined his

arguments to the extent of quantum only.

Heard.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant -

Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an

error while deciding issue No.3 and granting exorbitant amount of

compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- in favour of the claimant

respondent. He further submits that the claimant - respondent has

sustained only 3% permanent disability and she is a Government

Servant serving on the post of Nurse Grade II. He further submits

that the respondent - claimant remained on leave for 57 days and

for that period she has received the salary, so under these

circumstances award amount of Rs.51,592/- is not justified. He

further submits that under the other heads exorbitant amount i.e.

Rs.35,000/- awarded to her for which she is not entitled. Hence,

under these circumstances the impugned award is not sustainable

in the eye of law and is liable to quashed and set aside by this

Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent -

claimant submits that findings of the Tribunal on issue No.3 is just

and proper and no infirmity was committed. The Tribunal after

taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record,

has passed the award in question which needs no interference by

this Court.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar.

(3 of 3) [CMA-1341/2011]

While deciding the issue No.3, the Tribunal has taken

into consideration the statements of the respondent - claimant in

which she has categorically stated that on account of the injuries

suffered by her, she could not attend her duties w.e.f. 19.01.2009

to 07.03.2009. The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration

the fact that on account of the accident, the respondent -

claimant has sustained 3% permanent disability as she received

grievous injury on her left hand and because of that she could not

attend her duties for 57 days. Hence, not only she has suffered

pain and suffering but also she has suffered physical and mental

agony and because of that her day to day life was disturbed.

Thus, looking to the fact that the claimant - respondent

has suffered grievous injury and 3% permanent disability and

because of the same she has to remain absent from work and she

could not perform her day to day routine activities, this Court does

not find any infirmity in the impugned award passed by the

Tribunal. The findings recorded by the Tribunal vide judgment and

award dated 04.01.2011 is just and proper which needs no

interference by this Court.

This appeal is devoid of merit, hence the same is

dismissed.

Record be sent back forthwith to the Tribunal for

disbursement of the amount of award to the claimant -

respondent.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

KuD/4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)