Rajasthan High Court
The National Insurance Company vs Sushil Kumar And Ors ... on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
[2023:RJ-JP:18627]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2261/2009
1. The National Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional
Manager, Jeevan Nitdhi, Second Floor, Bhawani Singh Road,
Jaipur.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd. through Local Branch, Jatia
Bazar, Sikar.
(Insured Vehicle Jeep No.RJ-23C-2422)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Chunni Lal Caste Jat, aged 7 years
minor through natural guardian father Shri Chunni Lal Jat R/o
Kachwa, Tehsil Laxman Garh, District Sikar.
2. Rekha Ram S/o Bhagwana Ram Jat, R/o Fagalwa, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.
(Vehicle Driver Jeep No.RJ-23C-2422).
3. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Swaroop Narayan Caste Brahmin, R/o
Khood, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar.
(Vehicle Owner Jeep No.RJ-23C-2422)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
22/08/2023
1. The appellants have not filed PF & notices for a long time.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973
against the judgment and award dated 08.02.2006 passed by
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.545/2005, whereby the
learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the
[2023:RJ-JP:18627] (2 of 4) [CMA-2261/2009]
respondent No.1-claimant (hereinafter referred to as the
'claimant') and awarded a compensation of Rs.15,264/- in favour
of the claimant.
3. The claimant submitted a claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.26,60,000/-.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After
hearing learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition
of the claimant and passed the impugned judgment and award.
Hence, the present appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. It transpires from the perusal of the impugned judgment
dated 08.02.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal that the
claimant-respondent-Sushil Kumar has sustained grievous head
injuries in the accident and he was operated and was hospitalized
for his treatment. For the grievous injuries the learned Tribunal
has awarded only Rs.10,000/-; Rs.1964/- for actual medical
expenses; Rs.3000/- for transportation expenses and Rs.500/-
has been awarded for the expenses incurred in filing the claim
petition thus, total Rs.15,264/- has been awarded as
compensation to the claimant, which cannot be said to be on
higher side.
7. It was averred on behalf of the Insurance Company before
the learned Tribunal that the vehicle involved in the accident was
insured in the name of one Vinod Kumar. However, on the date of
accident the vehicle was registered in the name of Suresh Kumar,
with whom there was no privity of contract of the Insurance
[2023:RJ-JP:18627] (3 of 4) [CMA-2261/2009]
Company. The vehicle was insured by Vinod Kumar and the
Insurance Company was liable to indemnify only Vinod Kumar.
This plea taken by the appellant - Insurance Company before the
learned Tribunal has been negatived.
8. The award passed in the impugned judgment is less than
Rs.50,000/-. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Chetna Bansal &
Ors in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.03/2000 has held thus :
"4) This Court therefore impress upon the insurance
companies that despite outer limit of Rs.10,000/-
contained in Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, they ought to adopt a uniform policy as to
against award of what amount of compensation, they
should not file appeal. At the same time, considering
substantial fall in the value of rupee as compared to
1988 when the present Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was
enacted by the Parliament, there is also a case of
review of the limit of Rs.10,000/- under Section
173(2), if not upto Rs.1,00,000/-, an amount of
Rs.50,000/- should at least be fixed against which
the appeal should be made not maintainable. This is
however a matter of legislative policy. A copy of this
order should therefore be also endorsed to the
Secretary Ministry of Finance, Banking Division for
initiating the process by raising limit of Rs.10,000/-
to Rs.50,000/-.
5) A copy of this order should also be endorsed to the
Headquarters of National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., United India
Insurance Company Ltd., New India Assurance
Company Ltd., General Insurance Corporation of
India etc.etc., which may either individually or
collectively, in consultation with each other jointly
[2023:RJ-JP:18627] (4 of 4) [CMA-2261/2009]
frame policy as to what should be the limit of the
amount against which appeal should not be filed.
6) This appeal however is dismissed with costs of
Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited by the appellant-New
India Assurance Company Limited with the Rajasthan
Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of
three months."
8. No interference is thus warranted as held by this Court in the
case of Chetna Bansal (supra) and the present appeal is,
therefore, dismissed accordingly.
9. Stay application too stands dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
A.ARORA /-23.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
