Uttarakhand High Court
Royal Sundaram General Insurance ... vs Umesh Joshi And Others And Others on 27 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.389 of 2023
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.
....Appellant
Versus
Umesh Joshi and Others and others .... Respondents
Present:
Mr. Bharat Tewari, counsel for the appellant.
Dated: 27.09.2023
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and
award dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in
M.A.C.P. No.243 of 2019, whereby the Tribunal has
partly allowed the claim petition of the respondent
no.1/claimant for compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,28,190/- against the Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Company Limited (appellant herein).
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on
admission.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the respondent no.1/claimant filed the Motor
Accident Claim Petition for the compensation for the
injuries received in the accident by the vehicle Canter
No.UK06CB 4326 with the vehicle of the respondent
no.1/claimant being driven by him. He would further
submit that the learned Tribunal erred in not
appreciating the fact that it was a case of contributory
negligence and the accident was occurred due to own
negligence of the respondent no.1/claimant while driving
the case.
He would draw the attention of the Court to
Para 18 of the impugned Award and would submit that
the arguments were addressed by the counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company before the tribunal to the
fact that DW1 Rakesh Singh, driver of the offending
canter has stated in examination-in-chief that when he
was driving his vehicle and reached near Bhagwati Filling
Station then the Swift Car which was being driven by its
driver rashly and negligently hit his Canter from front.
He would further submit that as per the
statement of DW1 Rakesh Singh it was a head-on
collision and therefore the negligence of respondent
no.1/claimant is proved.
4. In view of the above submission of the counsel
for the appellant/insurance company, the Court perused
the impugned Award. The Tribunal in subsequent para
19 of the judgment specifically stated that DW1 in his
cross examination admitted that paper No.36C/7 is the
site plan of the place of the occurrence of the accident
and it shows the correct movement of vehicles. It is
further observed by the Tribunal in para 20 that the site
plan clearly mentions the place of occurrence and on
perusal of the same it reveals that the Car No.UK06Y
4488 was coming from Sitarganj towards Khatima and
the offending vehicle canter No.UK06CB 4326 which was
coming from Khatima towards Sitarganj left his side and
hit the car which was coming from the right side,
therefore, respondent no.1/claimant was not guilty of
contributory negligence in the cause of the accident.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the Award
passed by the learned Tribunal is correct and justified in
the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore
does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is
dismissed in limine.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
27.09.2023
BS
