Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Leela Devi And Ors. ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: Madan Gopal Vyas
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:10494]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 437/2014
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Residency
Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Leela Devi W/o late Shri Arjun Ram
2. Gautam Devasi S/o late Shri Arjun Ram
3. Hema Ram S/o Shri Rama Ram
4. Kamla Devi W/o Shri Hema Ram
Respondent No. 2 is minor through his natural mother Smt.
Leela Devi W/o late Shri Arjun Ram, Teh. Bilada, District Jodhpur
----Claimants.
5. Shrawan Ram S/o Shri Rupa Ram, r/o Palasni, Police Station
Dangiawas, District Jodhpur.
(Driver and Real owner of Car No. RJ-14-1C-7786)
6. Swaroop Chand S/o Shri Premchand, r/o Tiwri, Teh. Osiyan,
District Jodhpur.
(Registered Owner of Car No. RJ-14-1C-7786)
----Respondents.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s) : ---
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
01/03/2024
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay in filing
the appeal is condoned.
[2024:RJ-JD:10494] (2 of 3) [CMA-437/2014]
3. The present Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellant-insurance
company against the judgment and award dated 04.12.2013
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur
(hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal'), whereby the
learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants to the
tune of Rs. 12,45,000/- with interest @ 8.5% per annum.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company
challenging the impugned judgment and award submitted that the
learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the
deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was working as a
salesman and the claimant failed to establish that he was earning
a sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month. Further, it is submitted that the
learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue No. 1. It is submitted
that due to the negligence of the car driver, the accident had
occurred. Further, it is submitted that merely because the
investigating agency filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the
car, it cannot be said that the entire responsibility of accident was
of the car driver. Thus, it is submitted that the present appeal may
be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned Tribunal may be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
material available on record.
6. In the present case, one Arjun Ram, having age of 26 years,
died in an accident that occurred on 20.01.2010. The learned
Tribunal framed as many as four issues and after taking into
consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence available
[2024:RJ-JD:10494] (3 of 3) [CMA-437/2014]
on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition
and awarded a total sum of Rs. 12,45,000/- to the claimants.
7. In my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has not
committed any illegality and irregularity and thus the impugned
judgment and award does not call for any interference.
8. Accordingly, the present Civil Misc. Appeal is dismissed.
9. The Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
17-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
