Rajasthan High Court
Akheram And Another vs United India Insurance Co Ltd And ... on 15 December, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1737/2013
1. Akheram S/o Shri Dhanna Lal Jat, (Driver Of Truck No. Rj-32-
G-2016) R/o Sursagar, P.s. Pachewar, Tehsil Malpura, District
Tonk (Raj)
2. Suraj Karan S/o Shri Ram Pratap Jat, (Regd. Owner Of Truck
No. Rj-32-G-2016) R/o Village Reti, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur
(Raj)
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, (Insurance
Company Of Truck No. Rj-32-G-2016) Through Regional
Manager, Regional Office, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur
2. Kalyan S/o Shri Chhitar, R/o Village Parli, Tehsil Malpura,
District Tonk
3. Chandra Prakash S/o Late Shri Kalyan, R/o Village Parli, Tehsil
Malpura, District Tonk
4. Ms. Suman D/o Kalyan, R/o Village Parli, Tehsil Malpura,
District Tonk
5. Ms. Sona D/o Kalyan, R/o Village Parli, Tehsil Malpura, District
Tonk
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 54/2019
1. Akheram S/o Shri Dhanna Lal Jat, (Driver Of Truck No. Rj-
32-G-2016) R/o Sursagar, P.s. Pachewar, Tehsil Malpura,
District Tonk (Raj)
2. Suraj Karan S/o Shri Ram Pratap Jat, (Regd. Owner Of Truck
No. Rj-32-G-2016) R/o Village Reti, Tehsil Dudu, District
Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellants
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, (Insurance
Company Of Truck No. Rj-32-G-2016) Through Regional
Manager, Regional Office, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road,
Jaipur
2. Kalyan S/o Shri Chhitar, R/o Village Parli, Tehsil Malpura,
District Tonk
(2 of 3) [CMA-1737/2013]
3. Chandra Prakash S/o Late Shri Kalyan, R/o Village Parli,
Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk
4. Ms. Suman D/o Kalyan, R/o Village Parli, Tehsil Malpura,
District Tonk
5. Ms. Sona D/o Kalyan, R/o Village Parli, Tehsil Malpura,
District Tonk
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pareek
Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore for Mr.
Satish Kumar Khandal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
15/12/2021
This is an appeal filed against the award dated 01.12.2012
whereby the liability of the Insurance Company has been
exonerated and the claim has been awarded as against owner
alone solely on the ground that the national permit for driving of
the vehicle was not produced before the learned MACT along with
the appeal and application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 has been
placed on record. The national permit of the vehicle was valid for
the period from 30.04.2008 to 29.04.2013. The vehicle was thus
having national permit for Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat
and Maharashtra. The accident took place at Malapura, District
Tonk, thus, the vehicle had a permit to ply.
Keeping in view thereto, it cannot be said that the Insurance
Company was not liable to pay the compensation on the insured
vehicle. It is noticed that a vehicle namely the truck bearing
No.RJ-32-G-2016 was duly insured with United India Insurance
Company Limited. At the time of insuring a vehicle in normal
(3 of 3) [CMA-1737/2013]
course, permit of a transport vehicle is also looked into. Though it
is not necessary for the purpose of insuring of vehicle.
Be that as it may, since the vehicle was already having a
national permit from the year 2008 and was continuing to have
the same during the intervening period up to 2013, the Insurance
Company cannot be absolved of its liability.
Accordingly, the judgment passed by the learned MACT,
Sambhar Lake deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent and
the liability of the Insurance Company is held on the award. The
present appeal is accordingly allowed to the said extent.
Cross objections have been filed by the claimants of which
Rs.4,09,000 has been awarded.
Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the income
assessed is of much lower side and even as per the Minimum
Wages Act if the income is assessed it would come to Rs.4050/-
whereas the learned MACT has assessed the income as Rs.3000/-
I have considered the submissions.
This Court finds that the income of the deceased lady who
has not shown to be working in any concern or doing other work
has been assessed as Rs.3000/- and accordingly the assessment
has been made.
In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to enhance
the amount.
Accordingly, the cross objection application is dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN/154-155
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
