United India Ins. Company Limited vs Lichhma Devi @ Lachhmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 6919 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 439/2019

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Deputy Manager, T.P. Hub, 2nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati N. Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Lichhma Devi @ Lachhmi W/o Late Ganesh Ram @ Ganesh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Ward No. 3, Maliyon Ka Bas, Sujangarh, Churu.

2. Narayan S/o Late Ganesh Ram @ Ganesh Kumar, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Ward No. 3, Maliyon Ka Bas, Sujangarh, Churu.

3. Bhawani Shankar S/o Late Ganesh Ram @ Ganesh Kumar, Aged About 15 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lichhma Devi @ Lachhmi. B/c Prajapat, R/o Ward No. 3, Maliyon Ka Bas, Sujangarh, Churu.

4. Vivekanand @ Babu Lal S/o Late Ganesh Ram @ Ganesh Kumar, Aged About 11 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lichhma Devi @ Lachhmi. B/c Prajapat, R/o Ward No. 3, Maliyon Ka Bas, Sujangarh, Churu.

5. Smt. Jamna Devi W/o Late Pusa Ram @ Phusa Ram, Aged About 65 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Ward No. 3, Maliyon Ka Bas, Sujangarh, Churu.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Vyas
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Rakesh Matoria



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                Judgment

10/03/2021

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 06.10.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Sujangarh, District Churu in MACT Case No. 3/2015,

(2 of 4) [CMA-439/2019]

whereby learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties

decided the claim petition of the respondents-claimants and

awarded a sum of Rs. 13,71,000/- as compensation to them on

account of the death of Ganesh Ram in the accident which

occurred on 27.04.2014.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

vehemently submitted that findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.2

are erroneous, as the appellant-Insurance Company is under an

obligation to compensate the award amount to the insurer/owner

of the vehicle and since the owner of the vehicle was not arrayed

as party respondent in the present case, the appellant is not liable

to indemnify the amount of compensation. Thus, the Tribunal

committed an error in deciding Issue No.2 against the appellant.

Learned counsel further submits that it has come on record

that Ganesh Ram was working as a Mason and was also involved

in the agricultural work of the family. The income of the deceased

Ganesh Ram was wrongly assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.9,000/-

per month. He submits that no evidence in support of the income

of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal, therefore, the

income assessed by the Tribunal is quite excessive.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants,

while opposing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant,

submits that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 are

absolutely correct. He submits that Smt. Jamna Devi, being the

wife of late Pusa Ram, is claimant No. 5 in the present case and,

therefore, she has not been arrayed as party respondent being the

owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that the

objection raised by the counsel for the appellant is highly technical

(3 of 4) [CMA-439/2019]

and if Smt. Jamna Devi is not arrayed as party respondent, the

appellant cannot be absolved from paying the compensation to the

claimants in this case.

Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the

deceased Ganesh Ram being involved in the work of construction

and agriculture was produced before the Tribunal in shape of the

testimony of Smt. Lichhma Devi. As per her statement, deceased

Ganesh Ram was doing the work of Masonry and was also helping

the family in the agricultural work and thereby he was earning a

monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal, therefore, had

rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month.

He therefore, prays that no interference in the judgment dated

06.10.2018 is warranted by this Court.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the judgment dated 06.10.2018 as well as the other

relevant documents of the case.

The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.2, that the claimants

are entitled for the claim as the deceased Ganesh Ram was sitting

in the car, is required to be upheld as the risk of the deceased

Ganesh Ram was very well covered by the Insurance Company as

per the insurance policy. Ganesh Ram was not travelling in the car

as an owner of the vehicle, because owner of the vehicle was Pusa

Ram who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In the

accident, Pusa Ram who was the father of Ganesh Ram, also died

but no claim application was preferred on his behalf. This Court is

of the view that the Insurance Company has stepped into the

shoes of the owner while compensating the award. Since the

owners of the vehicle are the claimants, therefore, it is undisputed

that no other person can claim the damages except the claimants

(4 of 4) [CMA-439/2019]

who are the owners of the vehicle in the present case. The

objection of the learned counsel for the appellant that Smt. Jamna

Devi was not arrayed as party respondent in the capacity of the

owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company will not indemnify or

pay the amount awarded vide judgment dated 06.10.2018,

appears to be highly technical. Therefore, it is held that even if

Smt. Jamna Devi was not arrayed as party respondent in the

capacity of owner of the vehicle in the present case, the Insurance

Company shall pay the claim amount in pursuance of the

directions issued by the learned Tribunal dated 06.10.2018. The

findings on Issue No.2 are, therefore, upheld.

The income of the deceased Ganesh Ram is taken by the

Tribunal as Rs. 9,000/- on account of the fact that the deceased

Ganesh Ram was performing the work of a Mason and was also

involved in the family business of agriculture.

In view of the present set of facts and the testimony of Smt.

Licchma Devi, the amount assessed by the Tribunal appears to be

justified and the same is not required to be interfered with. The

computation of the award done by the Tribunal, therefore, does

not suffer from any infirmity.

In view of the discussions made above, there is no force in

the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

The amount awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and

award dated 06.10.2018 in favour of the respondents-claimants

shall be disbursed to them at the earliest.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

2-/VivekM/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)