National Insurance Co Ltd vs Poonam Singh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1609 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4399/2008

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, LIC Building, IInd
Floor, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) having its Branch Office at
Beawer.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1. Poonam Singh S/o Sh. Man Singh, Aged about 45 Years, R/o
Village Bhojpura, PS Beawar Sadar Tehsil Beawar, District-Ajmer
(Raj.)
2. Chena Ram S/o Sh. Tulsa Ram, R/o Village Kokar, PS
Parbatsar (Nagaur)
    (Driver Truck No.RJ 30-G- 1837)
3. Sukhlal Khatik S/o Shri Devilal Khatik, R/o Kelwa, District Raj
Samand (Raj.)
  (Owner Truck No.RJ 30-G- 1837).
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. V.P. Mathur
For Respondent(s)          :



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

                                 Judgment

18/02/2022

          The      present     appeal       has     been         preferred   by   the

appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and order

dated 05.08.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

cum Additional District Judge (Fast Track No.1, Beawar), whereby,

an amount of Rs.4,51,360/- along with interest @ 7.5% has been

awarded to the claimant-respondents on account of the injury and

permanent disability suffered by him in an accident, which was

occurred on 02.12.2005.

The Tribunal after framing the issues evaluating the

evidence on the record and hearing the counsel for the parties,

decided the claim petition of the claimant-respondents. Feeling

(2 of 4) [CMA-4399/2008]

aggrieved by the impugned award, the Insurance Company has

submitted instant appeal on various grounds.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

In spite of service, none has put in appearance on

behalf of the claimant-respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

has attacked the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 on the

ground that the Tribunal has not evaluated the evidence in correct

perspective and therefore, has erred while recording the finding on

issue No.1 against the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for

the appellant further submitted that there was head on collusion

between the offending vehicle and the vehicle driven by the

claimant. It is further contended by learned counsel for the

appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part of the

claimant. Hence, the appellant-Company is not liable to make

payment of compensation. He further submitted that the claimant

was not having any license to ply the vehicle. Learned counsel

submitted that the income of the claimant had been assessed on

the higher side. Lastly, he argued that when the claimant was

examined by the Medical Board on 03.09.2007, the Board was of

the opinion that the injuries sustained by the claimant were not

properly healing and the claimant was advised to revisit the

Medical Board after four weeks. He submitted that the claimant

revisited the Hospital within a period of three weeks only and this

time there were two members in the Medical Board, who gave

their opinion that the claimant has sustained 76.5% permanent

disability without considering the injury report of the claimant.

(3 of 4) [CMA-4399/2008]

I have considered the submissions made at bar and

gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as

well as record of the case.

For appreciation of the arguments on issue No.1 a close

scrutiny of the site plan reveals that the offending vehicle was

driven by the respondent No.2-Chena Ram in a wrong side and

the vehicle of the claimant was coming from the opposite direction

and the accident has occurred at the side marked as "X" in the

site plan. Therefore, at the time of accident, the vehicle was being

driven by the claimant on the right side of the road and the

offending vehicle was being driven on the opposite side i.e. in the

wrong side of the road. So, it cannot be believed that there was

any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.

So far as the contention raised by the counsel for the

appellant that the claimant was not having any license to ply the

vehicle. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is

having no merit as the claimant has not submitted the claim

petition against the Insurance Company of his own vehicle. So far

as the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal after

appreciating the evidence available on record and the same has

been rightly assessed and there is no illegality committed by the

Tribunal while deciding this issue. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal

on issues No.2 and 5 is just and proper and the same is not

required to be interfered by this Court.

So far as the interest @ 7.5% per annum awarded by

the Tribunal is concerned, the same appears to be on slightly

higher side. Therefore, this Court feels that the same should be

reduced from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum.

(4 of 4) [CMA-4399/2008]

In view of the discussion hereinabove, the appeal filed

by the appellant-Insurance Company stands disposed of with a

modification that the award of the Tribunal is maintained,

however, the interest awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of

Rs.7.5% per annum is reduced to Rs.6% per annum from the date

of filing the claim petition.

The appellant-Insurance Company is granted six weeks'

time from today to deposit the balance amount. Upon depositing

the balance amount, the amount of compensation be disbursed to

the claimant-respondents forthwith.

Record of the Tribunal be send back forthwith.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Sunita/8

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)