Mangi Lal And Ors vs Dud Singh And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 8900 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35947]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1680/2017

1. Mangi Lal Son Of Karna Ram,

2. Vishal Son Of Mangi Lal, aged 7 years

3. Annu D/o Mangi Lal, aged 5 years Appellant Nos. 2 And 3 Are Minors Through Guardian Father Mangi Lal, Residents Of Village Dhan Jhanwar, District Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Dud Singh Son Of Bheru Singh, Resident Of Baludiya Village, Post Savadari, Devgarh Madariya Police Station, District Rajsamand (Driver Of Truck No. 3011)

2. Sohan Lal Mistry Son Of Shri Ganesh Ji Mistry, Resident Of Village Dewar, Police Station Dewar, District Rajsamand, Presently Resident Of Parwati Bungalow, Suncity Bopal, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (Owner Of Vehicle)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 19, Reliance Center, Balchand Heerachand Marg, Bellar East, Mumbai (Insurer Of Vehicle)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1400/2017 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Regional Manager, 6th Floor, Man Upasana Tower, Sardar Patel Marg, "C" Scheme, Jaipur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Mangi Lal S/o Karna Ram, aged about 32 years

2. Vishal S/o Mangi Lal, aged about 10 years

3. Sushri Annu D/o Mangi Lal, aged about 7 years Respondent No. 2 And 3 are minors through their Natural Guardian Father Mangi Lal, R/o Than Jhanwar, District Jodhpur. Claimants

4. Dud Singh S/o Bheru Singh, R/o Village Baludiya Post Sawadadi, Police Station Devgarh Madariya, District Rajsamand. Driver

[2023:RJ-JD:35947] (2 of 4) [CMA-1680/2017]

5. Sohan Lal Mistri S/o Ganesh Ji, R/o Devar, Police Station Devar, District Rajsamand. At Present - Parwati Bangale, Suncity Bopal, District Ahmedabad Gujrat. Owner

----Respondents

For Claimants : Mr. BR Bishnoi For Insurance Company : Mr. TRS Sodha

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/2023

The present civil miscellaneous appeals under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are directed against the judgment

and award dated 04.04.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-I, Jodhpur (the Tribunal, for short) in Claim Case No.

402/2012 (2688/14) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed

the claim petition and awarded Rs. 6,64,550/- as compensation

to the claimants.

2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1680/2017 is filed by the

claimants for enhancement of the award. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal

No. 1400/2017 is filed by the Insurance Company for quashing

and setting aside the impugned judgment and award. Since both

the appeals pertain to same incident and involve connected issues,

they are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are

that on 13.06.2011, the deceased Smt Kamla Devi was coming

from Kuda Bishnoiya to her native place on a motorcycle bearing

no. RJ-19-SW-0244 when the driver of truck bearing no. GJ-1-BV-

3011 hit the motorcycle from behind in an attempt to overtake the

motor cycle. Due to this accident, the deceased sustained injuries

[2023:RJ-JD:35947] (3 of 4) [CMA-1680/2017]

and ultimately succumbed to death. A claim petition was filed by

the claimants before the learned Tribunal which was partly allowed

and a compensation of Rs. 6,64,550/- was granted. The non-

claimants were held jointly and severally liable.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the

learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a meagre compensation to

the claimants. It is submitted that the deceased earned Rs. 6000/-

per month and the learned Tribunal has assessed her income at

Rs. 3000/- which has resulted into such low compensation. It is

therefore prayed that the compensation be enhanced suitably in

accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company

submits that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are

contrary to the material available on record. The claimants have

failed to prove the negligence of truck driver and thus, the

Insurance Company cannot be held liable. Further, the FIR of the

accident was lodged after 7 days without assigning any proper

reason which casts a suspicion over the involvement of the truck

in the accident. Thus, it is prayed that the Insurance Company

may be exonerated from its liability.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. A perusal of the impugned judgment makes it clear that the

learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased as

Rs. 3000/-. No documentary evidence has been led on behalf of

claimants to support that she used to earn Rs. 6000/- per month.

The claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was self

employed. This, in my opinion, in absence of any documentary

[2023:RJ-JD:35947] (4 of 4) [CMA-1680/2017]

evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of

deceased as Rs. 3000/-. Further, the Tribunal has awarded just

and reasonable compensation in the circumstances of the case.

8. With respect to the contention of learned counsel for the

respondent that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained

delay of 7 days, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the

basis of documentary evidence available on record that the

deceased was admitted in Mathuradas Mathur Hospital on

13.06.2011 and died on 20.06.2011. The FIR was lodged on the

day of her death itself that is on 20.06.2011. Hence, the delay in

lodging the FIR is sufficiently explained since the first priority of

the husband as a reasonable prudent person is to cater to his

injured wife. The truck was insured with the Insurance Company

and thus the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its

liablity.

9. Consequently, both the appeals, being bereft of merits are

hereby dismissed.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J CPG/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)