Rajasthan High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Makhan Singh S/O Aadiram on 18 January, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6311/2019
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Manager,
Regional Office, Sahara Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Non-Claimant No.2/ Appellant
Versus
1. Makhan Singh S/o Aadiram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Village Dandouli, PS Mania, Distt. Dholpur. (Raj)
----Claimant/ Respondent
2. Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Ramji Lal Sharma, R/o Village
And Post Badrika, PS Kaulari Distt. Dholpur (Raj)
----Non-Claimant No.1/ Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg
Mr. Dheeraj Singhal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
18/01/2021
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
05.09.2019 whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent-
claimant has partly been allowed.
Assailing the findings of the learned Tribunal qua Issue No.1,
learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned
Tribunal has erred in failing to appreciate that the claimant has
come with false story as to his accident with Motorcycle
No.RJ11SB9470. Drawing attention of this Court towards the
indoor ticket of Aayushman Hospital (Ex.NA-3) and statement of
Dr. Rajesh Goyal (NAW3), learned counsel submitted that the
accident occurred inasmuch as the claimant injured fell from the
motorcycle, he himself was driving under inebriated state and no
(2 of 2) [CMA-6311/2019]
accident, as alleged by the respondent-claimant, has happened.
He submitted that the FIR is delayed by 16 days and hence, the
judgment under challenge deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant, opposing the
prayer, submitted that the learned Tribunal has, after due
appreciation of the material on record, passed the judgment which
does not require any interference by this Court.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
A perusal of the cross-examination of respondent-claimant
Makhan Singh (AW2) reveals that he was not confronted with
indoor ticket (Ex.NA-3). The learned Tribunal has, while deciding
the Issue No.1, taken into consideration the conspectus of
material on record including the Ex.NA-3 as well as statement of
the witnesses and has recorded a categorical finding that the
accident occurred in the manner as was pleaded and established
by the respondent-claimant. It is well-established principle of law
that delay in lodging the FIR is no ground to doubt the claimant's
case. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment
dated 05.09.2019 which may require interference by this Court in
its appellate jurisdiction.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
The pending application also stands disposed of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/23
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
