National Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Julleh Khan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2773 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1555/2020

National Insurance Company Ltd. Manager, Branch Business Centre First Floor, RSEB Circle, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

----Appellant(Insurance Company) Versus

1. Julleh Khan W/o Late Shri Shamshad Ahmed, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

2. Shahwar S/o Late Shri Shamshad Ahmed, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Bera Bakshi, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

3. Anam Khan D/o Late Shri Shamshad Ahmed, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Bera Bakshi, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

---Claimants

4. Mohammad Aarif S/o Hamid Ali, B/c Muslim, Aged Major, R/o Chota Bazaar, Tehsil Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh

---Driver Of The Car

5. Sameer Khan S/o Samad Khan, B/c Muslim, Aged Major, R/o Kasai Mohall, Tehsil Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh .

                                                              ---Owner Of The Car
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Vipul Singhvi
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Manish Kumar Pitaliya



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                   Judgment

02/02/2021

     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard and

disposed of finally.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and

award dated 02.03.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims

(2 of 4) [CMA-1555/2020]

Tribunal, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh in Motor Accident Claim

Case No.26/2018(C.I.S.No.59/2016). The claim petition has been

preferred by the claimants on account of death of Shamshad

Ahmed in the accident which occurred on 09.01.2016. The

Tribunal after framing issues and hearing the counsel for the

parties have awarded a sum of Rs.25,80,028/- to the claimants.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently

submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1

& 5 suffer from error apparent on the face of record. The Tribunal

failed to consider the evidence produced before it in the correct

perspective. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that

insured vehicle was involved in the accident is erroneous. He

submits that as per the statement of Liyakat Ali immediately after

the accident, he and Shamshaad became unconscious goes to

show that he couldnot see the offending vehicle and its number.

The counsel submits that in the event of Liyakat Ali becoming

unconscious immediately after the accident, it is not possible to

correctly note down the numbers and identify the vehicle in the

present case. He further submits that the contents of the F.I.R.

are also doubtful, because the F.I.R. was registered at the

instructions of Liyakat Ali who himself became unconscious

immediately after the accident. Therefore mentioning the number

of the subject vehicle in the F.I.R. is doubtful.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents

submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts in view

of the evidence adduced before it and has rightly come to the

conclusion that the present vehicle, which is involved in the

accident, is correctly identified. He further submits that the police

after investigation has also filed the charge-sheet showing

(3 of 4) [CMA-1555/2020]

involvement of the present vehicle in the accident. Learned

counsel submits that the owner & driver have filed the reply

before the Tribunal, wherein, they accepted the accident having

been caused by the present vehicle in this case. In support of his

contention, the counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Saroj & Ors. V/s Het Lal & Anr.

Reported in 2011(1) ACTC (SC) 107. He, therefore, submits

that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant

any interference by this Court.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

have gone through the judgment and award dated 02.03.2020.

After going through the findings recorded by the Tribunal on

Issue Nos.1 & 5, this Court is satisfied that the reasoning recorded

by the Tribunal on Issue Nos.1 & 5 are correct inasmuch as the

fact that the police after investigation has filed the charge-sheet

after identifying the vehicle involved in the present case.

Although, Liyakat Ali became unconscious after the accident but

after regaining his consciousness, in his statement recorded

before the Tribunal he has stated that though he could not see the

number of vehicle but he has given the specification and type of

vehicle. The statement of Liyakat Ali is corroborated by the

investigation conducted by the Police. There is no reason for this

Court to take a contrary view in light of the detailed findings

recorded by the Tribunal. Moreover, this Court is of the considered

view that when the driver and owner of the car both have

accepted the accident having taken place through their vehicle by

filing the reply before the Tribunal and the said fact was not

rebutted by the Insurance Company by placing any cogent and

(4 of 4) [CMA-1555/2020]

reliable evidence on record, there is no reason for this Court to

dispute the reply of the owner and driver.

In view of the discussion made above, there is no infirmity in

the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The contentions

raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are devoid of any

force.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 17-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)