Rajasthan High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Santokh And Others on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2966/2014
United India Insurance Company Ltd., T.P. Claim Hub, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur through its authorized signatory.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Santokh W/o Late Shri Raghunath, aged about 31 years,
R/o Udaigarhkheda, Village Dhantod, PS & Tehsil Bhinai, District
Ajmer.
2. Uda S/o Shri Neta, aged about 65 years, R/o Udaigarhkheda,
Village Dhantod, PS & Tehsil Bhinai, District Ajmer.
3. Raju S/o Late Shri Raghunath, aged about 14 years, R/o
Udaigarhkheda, Village Dhantod, PS & Tehsil Bhinai, District
Ajmer.
4. Pinta S/o Late Shri Raghunath, aged about 13 years, R/o
Udaigarhkheda, Village Dhantod, PS & Tehsil Bhinai, District
Ajmer.
5. Sonu S/o Late Shri Raghunath, aged about 11 years, R/o
Udaigarhkheda, Village Dhantod, PS & Tehsil Bhinai, District
Ajmer.
6. Dilkhush S/o Late Shri Raghunath, aged about 8 years, R/o
Udaigarhkheda, Village Dhantod, PS & Tehsil Bhinai, District
Ajmer.
7. Roopnarayan S/o Gheesa Lal, resident of Bherukhed via
Hanutia, PS Vijaynagar, District Ajmer (Driver of Vehicle)
8. Girdhar Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh, resident of Badi PS Vijay
nagar, District Ajmer (Owner of Vehicle)
(Respondent No3 to 6 being minor represented natural
guardian, mother, Smt Santokh.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
Reserved on : January, 12th 2022
Pronounced on : January, 18th 2022
1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the instant
appeal, assailing judgment and award dated 14.07.2014 in
relation to findings of issue No.1 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Kekri, District Ajmer in claim case No.169/2009.
(2 of 6) [CMA-2966/2014]
The Tribunal has assessed compensation to the tune of
Rs.6,51,000/- in favour of claimants holding the Driver, Owner and
Insurance Company as jointly and severally liable and further
directed Insurance Company to pay compensation amount to
claimants.
2. The relevant facts, as culled out from record are that one-
Raghunath was going along with his relative Kishan Singh on
motorcycle on 25.10.2009 and they stopped at place Kampoo
Square, Ramgarh, and when Mr.Raghunath was urinating at road
side, the motorcycle Bajaj Platina having registration No.RJ-36-
SB-5929 gave hit to Mr.Raghunath and he sustained serious
injuries. Mr.Kishan Singh took injured Mr.Raghunath to
Government hospital and later on Mr.Raghunath was succumbed
to his injuries and died on next day i.e. 26.10.2009. Thereafter,
natural heirs and legal representatives of deceased- Raghunath
filed claim petition under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1988") on
30.10.2009. In the claim petition, Driver and Owner of offended
motorcycle were made party as non-claimants No.1 and 2
(respondent No.1 and 2 herein) and Insurance Company was
made party as non-claimants No.3 (Appellant herein). From the
side of claimants oral statement of Smt. Santok wife of deceased
and Mr.Kishan Singh who was present at site on the day of
accident i.e. 25.10.2009 were got recorded and documentary
evidences were placed on record. Non-claimant-respondent Nos.1
and 2 (Driver and Owner) did not file any reply and only Non-
claimant No.3- Insurance Company filed reply to claim petition.
Insurance Company took a defence that motorcycle Bajaj Platina
having registration No.RJ-36-SB-5929, which is insured with
(3 of 6) [CMA-2966/2014]
Insurance Company, was wrongly involved in the accident.
According to Insurance Company, in fact the deceased was in
intoxicated state and he himself fell from his motorcycle due to
which he sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries in hospital.
The Insurance Company alleged that in discharge ticket of
Government hospital, alleged accident was not recorded as "MLC
case" and in the history of death, reason is mentioned "due to
fall". Insurance Company alleged that FIR of the said accident was
lodged after one month. On the basis of such defence, Insurance
Company claimed its exoneration from liability and prayed to
dismiss the claim petition qua Insurance Company.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and after
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded findings
of fact that FIR No.157/2009 at Police Station Masooda was
registered on next day of accident i.e. 26.10.2009, against driver
of offending vehicle (RJ-36-SB-5929) for offences under Section
279, 304A IPC and whereupon police has submitted charge-sheet
holding the driver negligent in driving the vehicle. It has been
observed that seizure memo of motorcycle (Exhibit-12) and
mechanical report of motorcycle (Exhibit-13) go to show that the
said motorcycle on its front bears marks of damages which show
that accident occurred by the motorcycle. It was also observed
that driver was having an effective and valid license and vehicle
was insured. Accordingly, the Tribunal fasten liability of
compensation upon Insurance Company.
4. In the present appeal, counsel for Insurance Company has
raised arguments on the basis of defence which was taken before
the Tribunal to the effect that FIR of accident was lodged after one
month and by bedhead ticket of deceased, produced on record
(4 of 6) [CMA-2966/2014]
(Exhibit-NA-4), it is proved that it was a case of "Non MLC" and
injury to deceased was due to "Fall". Further he argued that by
such documents (Exhibit-NA-4) and oral statement of NAW-1
Vishal Kumar Vyas, Investigator it stands proved and verified that
offended vehicle was wrongly involved, therefore, Insurance
Company ought not to have been held liable to pay compensation
and claim petition deserves to be dismissed qua the Insurance
Company.
5. In counter to arguments, counsel for claimants submits that
the Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence and there is
sufficient evidence on record to rebut documents (Exhibit- NA-4),
the bedhead ticket of the deceased to conclude that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle in
question by respondent No.1, who was driving the vehicle in
ownership of respondent No.2 and undisputedly motorcycle is
insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The findings
recorded by the Tribunal are justified and find support with
evidence available on record, and do not require any interference
by this Court in appeal as such appeal is devoid of merits and
deserved to be dismissed.
6. Heard counsel for both parties and perused material on
record.
7. From the record, it is apparent that the accident occurred on
25.10.2009 and FIR No.157/2009 was registered on 26.10.2009,
therefore, the plea of Insurance Company that FIR was registered
after a delay of one day is contrary to record and untenable.
8. Further there is no evidence by Insurance Company that
deceased was in the state of intoxication. As far as bedhead ticket
of deceased (Exhibit-NA-4) is concerned, the same is not
(5 of 6) [CMA-2966/2014]
conclusive evidence to assume that deceased sustained injury due
to fall from his own motorcycle and there was no accident with the
motorcycle of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The evidence adduced by
Insurance Company falls short to prove the defence pleaded by
Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal on the strength of oral and
documentary evidence adduced by and on behalf of claimants has
categorically concluded that the accident was occurred by
offended vehicle. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the
documents Exhibit-12 and Exhibit-13, which go to show that
offended motorcycle was also found damaged from front side.
That apart, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that at the time of
hospitalization of injured on 25.10.2009 and when he succumbed
to injuries on next day i.e. 26.10.2009, the FIR was not
registered, therefore in bedhead ticket (discharged ticket) of
deceased, there is no mention about MLC case. The Tribunal has
concluded that driver of motorcycle was found negligent in driving
vehicle and after investigation of FIR, charge-sheet was filed
against him for offences under Sections 279, 304A IPC. The
Tribunal has concluded that motorcycle was registered in the
name of non-claimants-respondent No.2 and was insured with the
Insurance Company. Insurance Policy (Exhibit-18) in force on the
date of accident. The findings as mentioned in para No.21 of
impugned judgment dated 14.07.2014 have been passed after
due appreciation of evidence on record and do not suffer from
perversity. Therefore, this Court is of opinion that the Tribunal has
passed judgment dated 14.07.2014, after a due appreciation and
consideration of evidence available on record. Further assessment
of compensation has been made following applicable principles of
(6 of 6) [CMA-2966/2014]
law. No illegality, perversity much less any jurisdictional error is
found in findings of issue No.1 as recorded by the Tribunal.
9. No other arguments except mentioned hereinabove have
been raised by either of parties.
10. The conclusion of aforesaid discussed is that instant appeal is
devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
11. Claimants are entitled to recover compensation from
Insurance Company. There is no order as to costs.
12. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
