United India Ins vs Meena
2021 Latest Caselaw 2576 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2770/2019

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bapu Bazar, Udaipur Through Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2Nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati N Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur (Insurer)

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Prahlad, B/c Sen,

2. Shri Babulal S/o Shri Vardichand, B/c Sen,

3. Sahil S/o Shri Prahlad, Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Prahlad, B/c Sen,

4. Piyush S/o Shri Prahlad, Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Prahlad, B/c Sen,

5. Yashika D/o Shri Prahlad, Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Prahlad, B/c Sen, All are R/o Isarmand, Tehsil Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

6. Shri Narayan S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, B/c Teli, R/o Isarmand, P.s. And Tehsil - Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.) At Present R/o C-205, Swarnbhumi Residency, Behind Patel Park, Kamrej, P.s. Kamrej, District Surat (Gujrat) (Driver)

7. Shri Devilal S/o Shri Unkarlal, B/c Gurjar, R/o Godhanpura, P.s. Kareda, District Bhilwara (Raj.) (Owner)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2775/2019 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bapu Bazar, Udaipur Through Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2Nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati N Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur (Insurer)

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Meena W/o Shri Prakash Chandra, B./c Lohar, R/o Dowadamata, P.s. - Amet, District Rajsamand (Raj.) At Present R/o Tirupati Nagar, Mambroli, P.s. Pandesara, District Surat (Gujarat)

2. Shri Narayan S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, B/c Teli, R/o Isarmad, P.s. And Tehsil - Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.) At

(2 of 4) [CMA-2770/2019]

Present R/o C-205, Swarnbhumi, Residency, Behind Patel Park, Kamrej, P.s. Kamrej, District Surat (Gujrat) (Driver)

3. Shri Devilal S/o Shri Unkarlal, B/c Gurjar, R/o Gordhanpura, P.s. Kareda, District Bhilwara (Raj.) (Owner)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2776/2019 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bapu Bazar, Udaipur Through Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2Nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati N Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur (Insurer)

----Appellant Versus

1. Kailash Chandra W/o Shri Mohanlal, B/c Lohar, R/o Chainpura, P.s. Badnore, Tehsil Aasind, District Bhilwara (Raj.) At Present R/o 53, Gokul Nagar, Hajipur, P.s. Himmat Nagar, District Himmat Nagar (Gujarat)

2. Shri Narayan S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, B/c Teli, R/o Isarmad, P.s. And Tehsil - Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.) At Present R/o C-205, Swarnbhumi, Residency, Behind Patel Park, Kamrej, P.s. Kamrej, District Surat (Gujrat) (Driver)

3. Shri Devilal S/o Shri Unkarlal, B/c Gurjar, R/o Gordhanpura, P.s. Kareda, District Bhilwara (Raj.) (Owner)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari assisted by Mr. Shubhankar Johari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

01/02/2021

The present appeals are arising out of a common Judgment

and Award dated 15.06.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Rajsamand in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 207/2018,

(3 of 4) [CMA-2770/2019]

308/2018 and 310/2018. Therefore, the present appeals are being

disposed of by this common order.

Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the validity

of the Judgment and Award dated 15.06.2019 vehemently

submitted that the Tribunal committed an error while fastening the

liability upon Insurance Company and not appreciated the facts in

correct perspective. He further submits that the finding on Issue

No. 1 is incorrect for the reason that vehicle was being driven by

Prahlad @ Pintu and not by Narayan Lal. He further submits that

his contention is also fortified from the fact that the name of the

driver shown in the F.I.R. is also Prahlad @ Pintu and not Narayan

Lal. Thus, the Tribunal committed a factual error in considering the

fact that the offending vehicle was being driven by Narayan Lal.

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, while

giving challenge to the finding of Tribunal on Issue No. 1, has

vehemently submitted that the bus was driven rashly and

negligently by its driver, which resulted into an accident and no

fault can be found with the Insurance Company to pay the

damages for the mistakes committed by the driver of the bus.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants-

respondents while opposing the arguments submitted that the

learned Tribunal appreciated the facts on Issue No. 1 in Para 15

of the judgment, wherein it has been noted by the Tribunal that

Narayan Lal was only the driver of the bus and deceased Prahlad

@ Pintu was travelling in the bus as a passenger. Besides this, the

owner of the vehicle, Devi Lal has also admitted that Narayan Lal

was driving the bus which met with an accident on 10.12.2018.

He, therefore, submits that in view of the categoric statement of

(4 of 4) [CMA-2770/2019]

Devi Lal, the facts with regard to bus being driven by Narayan Lal

which met with an accident have duly been proved beyond doubt.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the Judgment and Award dated 15.06.2019 as well as

relevant material of the case.

The finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 that the

bus was driven by Narayan Lal which met with an accident on

10.12.2018 has been proved beyond doubt by the Tribunal and

the discussion made on Issue No. 1 sufficiently proves that the

bus which met with an accident on 10.12.2018 was being driven

by Narayan Lal and occupants of the bus sustained injuries as well

as death of Prahlad is also proved in view of the evidence recorded

before the Tribunal. As far as the amount of compensation

awarded in the present case is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly

computed the same taking into consideration the observations of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases on the subject and the

rates prevailing at the time of accident.

In view of the discussions made above, the findings recorded

by the Tribunal are perfectly just and proper and the same does

not require any interference by this Court.

The appeals, therefore, fail and the same are dismissed.

Record of the case be sent back forthwith.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

5-7Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)