Rajasthan High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Sanjay Godha And Ors on 20 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:13789]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2819/2007
National Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur Regional Office
Jeevan Nidhi Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sanjay Godha S/o Shri Dharam Chandji Godha, R/o 28,
Taktheshahi Road, Jaipur (since deceased)
1/1. Smt. Arpana Godha Wife of Late Sh. Sanjay Godha,
aged 51 years (wife of deceased)
1/2. Kumari Vanshika Godha D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Godha
(daughter of deceased)
1/3. Kanchan Devi W/o Late Sh. Dharma Chan Godha
aged 78 years (mother of deceased)
All R/o 28, Taktheshahi Road Jaipur
---Claimants/respondents
2. Sukhdeo Prasad S/o Shri Rudmal, R/o Pratap Nagar,
Sanganer, Jaipur
3. Vimal Kumar Jasrajia S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, R/o D-6,
Appolo Apartment Sector No. 3, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. N. Tiwari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 20/03/2024
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-insurance company
(for short 'the insurance company') aggrieved with the judgment
and award dated 02.06.2007 passed by the Additional District
Judge (Fast Track) No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the
Tribunal') in claim case No.874/2005, whereby the Tribunal has
[2024:RJ-JP:13789] (2 of 3) [CMA-2819/2007]
awarded a sum of Rs.9,89,743/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum as compensation in favour of the respondent-claimant (for
short 'the claimant') from the date of filing the claim petition.
Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the
Tribunal has wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the
claimant- Sanjay Godha and awarded Rs. 9,89,743/-along with
interest @ 6% per annum as compensation. Learned counsel for
the insurance company further submits that FIR was lodged after
an inordinate delay of 3 months. Learned counsel for the
insurance company also submits that the vehicle in question was
owned by Vimal Kumar and same was used for taxi purposes, so,
owner of the vehicle- Vimal Kumar had committed breach of the
insurance policy. So, insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the insurance
company and submitted that the claimant- Sanjay Godha was
seriously injured and he took treatment in Jaipur and also in
Bombay, so, three months' delay occurred in lodging the FIR.
Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted that the
claimant- Sanjay Godha had suffered 50% permanent disability,
so the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs. 9,89,743/- as
compensation. So, the appeal filed by the insurance company be
dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the insurance company as well as counsel for the
claimants.
[2024:RJ-JP:13789] (3 of 3) [CMA-2819/2007]
It is an admitted position that the claimant- Sanjay Godha
took treatment in Jaipur and also in Bombay and he had also
exhibited documents with regard to his treatment. Taking into
consideration the fact that the claimant- Sanjay Godha sustained
50% permanent disability and in view of the fact that both hip
joints of the claimant - Sanjay Godha were damaged as also the
income tax return, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim
petition filed by the claimant- Sanjay Godha and awarded Rs.
9,89,743/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation.
So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Ritu/83
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
