Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd vs Hadman Ram And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:46667) on 29 October, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:46667]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2079/2016
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional
Manager, 637-B, Third Floor, Bhansali Tower, Residency Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Hadman Ram S/o Shri Babulal, R/o Village Rewada, Tehsil
Pachpadara, District Barmer, Rajasthan
2. Smt. Somi Devi W/o Shri Hadman Ram, R/o Village
Rewada, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Barmer, Rajasthan
3. Ramesh S/o Shri Hadman Ram, R/o Village Rewada, Tehsil
Pachpadara, District Barmer, Rajasthan
4. Menka, W/o Late Shri Suresh, R/o Village Rewada, Tehsil
Pachpadara, District Barmer, Rajasthan
5. Jitendra S/o Late Shri Suresh, minor, through his natural
guardian Mother Smt. Menka, R/o Village Rewada, Tehsil
Pachpadara, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. Mahipal S/o Shri Magna Ram, R/o Village Vishnunagar,
Lohawat, Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. Gopal Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Resident of Village Palli
Second, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukul Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Roshan Lal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
29/10/2025
Instant Civil Misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant
Insurance Company against the judgment & award dated
13.05.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Phalodi whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation
of Rs.16,83.,000/- in favour of the respondent-claimants with
(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 03:02:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46667] (2 of 5) [CMA-2079/2016]
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a claim petition
was filed by the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Phalodi, stating therein that on 06.07.2013, when the
deceased Suresh was going to market on his Motorcycle No. RJ-
19-SB-5096 after filling petrol in it from Lohawat Petrol Pump, at
that time one tractor bearing Engine No.D42786 being driven rash
and negligently by the driver hit the motorcycle of deceased and
consequently due to grievous injuries, he died.
The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the
evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, passed a judgment and award partly allowing claim
petition awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.16,83,800/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application
till date of realization.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company while
challenging the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No. 1
has vehemently submitted that the accident was not caused by
the tractor in question, it was occurred with the trolley attached
with the tractor. The said trolley was neither registered nor
insured with the appellant insurance company. Therefore, liability
of compensation should not have been fastened on the Insurance
company. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal has also
committed error in assessing the income of deceased to be
Rs.6,000/- per month despite the fact that there was no evidence
on record on the basis of which the income of the deceased could
be taken to be Rs.6,000/- per month. It is further argued that
(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 03:02:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46667] (3 of 5) [CMA-2079/2016]
learned Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding 50% of
income by way of future prospects as the deceased was stated to
be a private employee and he could not have any permanent
income to be awarded any compensation towards future
prospects. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant-Insurance
Company may be allowed and the judgment and award impugned
qua them may be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-
respondents/cross-objector opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and
submitted that the Tribunal rightly recorded the findings on all the
issues and fastened the liability of paying compensation on the
insurance company. It is argued that the appellant insurance
company in order to escape from the liability of payment of
compensation has created a false story of uninsured trolley of the
tractor and fastened negligence on the part of the deceased in
driving the vehicle. It is further argued that since there was no
fundamental breach of the conditions of the insurance policy,
therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay amount of
compensation to the claimants in the present case. In fact, the
learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on the lower side
while taking the income of deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month
whereas the deceased was 23 years old and was earning a sum of
Rs.3,60,000/- per annum and therefore, amount of compensation
deserves to be enhanced by assessing the income of deceased to
be Rs.3,60,000/- per annum. It is further argued that learned
Tribunal has also erred in not awarding suitable compensation for
future prospects of the deceased also.
(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 03:02:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46667] (4 of 5) [CMA-2079/2016]
I have considered the submissions on behalf of the counsel
for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment/award
dated 13.05.2016 as also the material available on record.
For appreciation of the arguments on issue No. 1, a
closescrutiny of the evidence of witness AW/2 Viram Singh shows
that the vehicle driven by the deceased on correct side and the
truck driver was driving the vehicle rash and negligently and came
on the wrong side whereas, no evidence was produced on behalf
of the appellant Insurance company to prove that the deceased
was negligent or was at fault. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the
documents and after appreciation of the evidence, I am of the
view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from
any infirmity and it can safely be presumed that since the Truck
was being driven on the wrong side, thus, there is no negligence
of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.
1,therefore, is affirmed. Further, the amount of Rs. 6,000/- taken
into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 2 also
does not suffer from infirmity as the claimants failed to prove that
the deceased was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. However, the
claimants have stated that at the time of accident, the deceased
was 28 years of age and he was self employed and doing business
of clothes. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 with
regard to income and future prospects is also just and proper and
same is not required to be interfered with by this Court.
I view of the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company is dismissed. The amount of compensation as
awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated
(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 03:02:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46667] (5 of 5) [CMA-2079/2016]
13.05.2016 is maintained and the same is directed to be paid by
the insurance company to the claimants.
Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Record, if received, be sent back immediately.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
1-GKaviya/-
(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 03:02:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
