Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Naurati Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 15466 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 954/2020

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Insurance Office 607-611, 6Th Floor Trimurti Vijay City, D-52 Ahinsa Circle, Ashok Marg, Jaipur. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Rj 13 Ga 3218)

----Appellant Versus

1. Naurati Devi W/o Late Shri Champalal, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Bhargav, R/o Chuna Bhatiya Near Police Station, Pipar City, Jodhpur.

2. Pradeep Bhargav S/o Late Shri Champalal, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Bhargav, R/o Chuna Bhatiya Near Police Station, Pipar City, Jodhpur.

3. Manish Bhargav S/o Late Shri Champalal, Aged About 15 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Naurati Devi. B/c Bhargav, R/o Chuna Bhatiya Near Police Station, Pipar City, Jodhpur.

4. Smt. Ramkanwari W/o Late Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 78 Years, B/c Bhargav, R/o Chuna Bhatiya Near Police Station, Pipar City, Jodhpur. (Deleted During The Pendency Of Trial)

5. Mangilal S/o Harlal, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Lamba, Police Station - Bilara, District Jodhpur (Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj 13 Ga 3218)

6. Satpal S/o Himtaram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Dhingsra, Tehsil Khivsar, District Nagaur (Owner Of Vehicle No. Rj 13 Ga 3218)

7. Smt. Kavita W/o Jitendra Kumar, D/o Late Shri Champalal Bhargav , R/o Chuna Bhatia Near Police Station, Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

8. Smt. Sarla W/o Suresh, Aged About 28 Years, D/o Late Shri Champalal Bhargav, R/o Naya Baas Near Chitra Cinema, Surya Colony, Jodhpur.

9. Smt. Lalita W/o Manoj, Aged About 27 Years, D/o Shri Champalal Bhargav, R/o Naya Baas, Near Chitra Cinema, Surya Colony, Jodhpur.

                                                               ----Respondents




                                            (2 of 4)             [CMA-954/2020]


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Vinay Kothari, Mr. Pradeep Singh
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Rajesh Panwar



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                     Order

05/10/2021

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -

Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated

25.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First,

Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.35/2013, whereby the

learned Tribunal after framing of the issues, evaluating the

evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties awarded a

sum of Rs.39,16,730/- in favour of the claimants on account of

death of one Champa lal Bhargava in an accident which occurred

on 28.10.2012.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

submitted that the award was passed on the basis of insurance

cover note which was procured on the basis of forged insurance

policy earlier issued by the Insurance Company. Learned counsel,

therefore submits that appellant-Insurance Company is not liable

to satisfy the award of compensation in the present case. Learned

counsel further submits that an amount of Rs.80,000/- was

awarded towards general damages whereas as per the judgment

of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157,

the claimants are entitled for Rs.70,000/- only towards general

damages.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-

respondents submits that the point raised by the counsel for the

(3 of 4) [CMA-954/2020]

appellant with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident was

not covered by the insurance policy, on the face of it, is not

tenable as no ground with that respect or any documentary

evidence was placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding

recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is not required to be

interfered with.

Learned counsel further submits that amount of Rs.80,000/-

was awarded by the Tribunal towards general damages which is

marginally high to the amount of Rs.70,000/- as per the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone

through the impugned award and the relevant record of the case.

The finding of the Tribunal on issue no.2 specifically shows

that the ground with respect to the production of insurance cover

note of the forged insurance policy was not raised before the

Tribunal. The same was also not stated in their objections

submitted before the Tribunal in reply to the claim petition.

Therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to consider whether the

vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant-

company or not. In view of the insurance cover note issued by the

appellant-Insurance Company, there was no reason for the

Tribunal to disbelieve the fact that the vehicle involved in the

accident was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company

and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant is not sustainable and the same is rejected. Thus, the

finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is upheld.

An amount of Rs.80,000/- was awarded towards general

damages which is marginally high as per the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Praney Sethi(supra), therefore,

(4 of 4) [CMA-954/2020]

same is reduced by Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the total amount of

Rs.10,000/- is reduced from the amount awarded by the Tribunal

vide judgment dated 25.11.2019.

In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal is

partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 25.11.2019 is

modified to the above extent.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

7-praveen/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)