Rajasthan High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Kanwar W/O Sagar Singh on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5248/2018
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Malpura Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
---- Non-Claimant-Appellant
Versus
1. Asha Kanwar W/o Sagar Singh, Aged About 43 Years,
2. Sudarshan Singh S/o Sagar Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
All R/o Dewal, Tehsil Malpura, Police Station
Lambaharisingh, District Tonk, Raj.
Claimants-respondents
3. Narendra Singh S/o Jagmohan Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Dangarthal, Tehsil Niwai, Police Station Niwai,
District Tonk.
(Driver Vehicle Tempo No. RJ-14-TB-4212).
4. Kailash Mehra S/o Ramphool, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Plot No. 6155, Ganesh Mohalla, Ambedkar Nagar, Colony,
Sanganer, Police Station Sanganer, District Jaipur.
(Owner Vehicle Tempo No. RJ-14-TB-4212).
----Non-Claimants-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5225/2018
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Malpura Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Appellant-Non-Claimant
Versus
1. Asha Kanwar W/o Sagar Singh, Aged About 43 Years.
2. Jitendra Singh S/o Sagar Singh, Aged About 26 Years.
3. Sudarshan Singh S/o Sagar Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
All R/o Dewal, Tehsil Malpura, Police Station
Lambaharisingh District Tonk, Raj.
Claimants-Respondents
4. Narendra Singh S/o Jagmohan Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Dangarthal, Tehsil Niwai, Police Station Niwai,
District Tonk.
(2 of 6) [CMA-5248/2018]
(Driver Vehicle Tempo No. RJ-14-TB-4212)
5. Kailash Mehra S/o Ramphool, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Plot No. 6155, Ganesh Mohalla, Ambedkar Nagar Colony,
Sanganer, Police Station Sanganer, District Jaipur.
(Owner Vehicle Tempo No. RJ-14-TB-4212)
----Non-Claimants-Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5249/2018
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Malpura Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-Claimant-Appellant
Versus
1. Tej Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Garjeda, Police Station
Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
Claimant-Respondent
2. Narendra Singh S/o Jagmohan Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Dangarthal, Tehsil Niwai, Police Station Niwai,
District Tonk.
(Driver Vehicle Tempo No. RJ-14-TB-4212)
3. Kailash Mehra S/o Ramphool, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Plot No. 6155, Ganesh Mohalla, Ambedkar Nagar Colony,
Sanganer, Police Station Sanganer, District Jaipur.
(Owner Tempo No. RJ-14-TB-4212).
----Non-Claimants-Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5250/2018
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Malpura Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Appellant-Non-Claimant
Versus
1. Rajendra Singh S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Denchwas, Police Station Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, Distt.
Tonk (Raj.)
Claimant-Respondent
2. Narendra Singh S/o Jagmohan Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Dangarthal, Tehsil Niwai, Police Station Niwai,
District Tonk.
Driver Vehicle Tempo No. RJ-14-TB-4212
3. Kailash Mehra S/o Ramphool, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
(3 of 6) [CMA-5248/2018]
Plot No. 6155, Ganesh Mohalla, Ambedkar Nagar Colony,
Sanganer, Police Station Sanganer, District Jaipur.
(Owner Tempo No. RJ-14-TB-4212)
----Non-Claimants-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avadesh Kumar Purohit, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
29/04/2022
All these appeals arise out of the common judgment hence
same are being decided together by this common judgment.
These appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and
award dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Court of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Malpura Tonk (for brevity 'the Tribunal') by which
the claim petitions filed by the claimants-respondents have been
allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed
to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants-respondents
on account of death of deceased persons in the accident which
occurred on 17.04.2014.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the
evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties decided
the claim petitions of the claimants awarding compensation to
them under various heads.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
submitted that immediately after the accident, FIR was lodged and
in the FIR, the initial version of the informant was that the
accident was caused by vehicle-Tavera Car No. RJ-14-TA-3342, but
it appears that since the said vehicle was not insured, hence
(4 of 6) [CMA-5248/2018]
subsequently a new vehicle i.e Tempo bearing No.RJ-14-TB-4212
was introduced to get the compensation.
Counsel further submits that the inspection of the Tavera Car
was done after two days from the accident and site plan of the
place of occurrence was prepared after 12 days of the accident.
He also submits that even in the cross-examination, the
informant has admitted that he has mentioned the number of the
Tavera Car but subsequently he changed his version and in the
cross-examination submits that by mistake, he has mentioned the
number of Tavera Car in FIR.
Lastly, he argued that the present case is fake claim of
compensation and should be deprecated and instant case is a fit
example. Instant case shows that the Tavera Car was not insured
with the Insurance Company so he changed the vehicle for getting
compensation i.e Tempo bearing No.RJ-14-TB-4212.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents
opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company and submitted that apart from informant, the
other injured witnesses appeared in the witness-box and they
have stated that the accident was caused by the driver of Tempo
bearing No.RJ-14-TB-4212.
He further submitted that these witnesses are the injured
witnesses who have sustained injuries in the said accident so
there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony.
Counsel for the claimants also submits that the Insurance
Company was having ample opportunity to prove evidence in this
regard but no evidence was produced before the Tribunal in
support of the contentions raised by the appellant-Insurance
Company.
(5 of 6) [CMA-5248/2018]
Learned counsel for the claimants have placed reliance on a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of
Sunita and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation and Anr., reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 195,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the claimants
are entitled to get compensation even if the witnesses are not
examined.
Herd counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Bare perusal of the statements of the witnesses namely, AW-
1 Asha Kanwar, AW-2 Rajendra Singh, AW-3 Tej Singh and AW-4
Kiran Kanwar and the documents, which were exhibited on the
record of the Tribunal, clearly indicates that the accident was
caused by the driver of the tempo No.RJ-14-TB-4212 against
whom charge-sheet was submitted by the Police after thorough
investigation in the matter.
Apart from above, the appellant-Insurance Company has not
submitted any cogent evidence before the Tribunal to prove that
the accident was caused by the driver of Tavera Car No.RJ-14-TA-
3342 so in absence of cogent evidence, it cannot be said and
relied upon that the vehicle-Tavera Car was involved in the
accident and the vehicle-Tempo-RJ-14-TB-4212 was introduced
subsequently to get compensation. There is no merit in the
arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company, hence all the four appeals are found to be devoid of
merits and the same are hereby dismissed.
A copy of this judgment be placed in these four connected
appeals.
Stay application(s) and all Pending application(s) stand(s)
dismissed, if any.
(6 of 6) [CMA-5248/2018]
Registry is directed to send back the records of the Tribunal.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Pravesh/12-15
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
