Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 420 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalla Ram

2003-03-21

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals arise from a common judgment and award dated 24.8.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer (for short the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 23/94 fled by respondent-claimant Dalla Ram, M.A.C.T. Case No. 25/94 filed by respondent-claimant Padma Ram and M.A.C.T. Case No. 24/94 filed by Smt. Ganga Devi & Ors., legal representatives of deceased Harchand Ram, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 1,95,0001- respectively. These appeals involve common questions of law and facts and arise out of one and same accident and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of these appeals are that on 8.4.1994, respondent-claimants Padma Ram, Dalla Ram, Dama Ram and Harchand Ram were engaged as labourers on truck bearing RNQ 7507. In the said truck, the goods belonging to AW 1 Vishan Singh were loaded from Bhinyana, which was to be carried to his agricultural field situated in District Jaisalmer. The aforesaid persons were engaged as labourers for loading and unloading of the goods. The said truck was being driven rashly, negligently and at a great speed by its driver respondent Bhanwar Lal when it was plying near RD No. 1403 on a curve, it suddenly turned turtle. The labourers, who were occupants of the said truck, sustained severe injuries. Harchand Ram succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives of Harchand Ram, respondent-claimants in S.S. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 705/1996 Smt. Ganga Devi and others (for short the claimants') filed a claim case being MACT Case No. 24/94 for compensation. Respondent-claimants Dalla Ram and Padma Ram in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 657/1996 and 664/1996 respectively (for short the injured claimants) filed claim cases for compensation for the injuries sustained by them. Since all these three claim cases arose out of one and same accident and were filed against same parties, therefore, the Tribunal consolidated the aforenoticed claim cases in M.A.C.T. Case No. 24/1994 and recorded evidence in the said case. Before the Tribunal, the claimants produced AW 1 Vishan Singh, AW 2 Ganga Devi, AW 3 Dalla Ram, AW 4 Padma Ram and produced documentary evidence Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/20. The insurance company examined NAW 1 H.C. Dheengda, Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company and produced and is proved insurance policy Ex.D/1. Before the Tribunal, the claimants produced AW 1 Vishan Singh, AW 2 Ganga Devi, AW 3 Dalla Ram, AW 4 Padma Ram and produced documentary evidence Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/20. The insurance company examined NAW 1 H.C. Dheengda, Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company and produced and is proved insurance policy Ex.D/1. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held respondent Bhanwar Lal, driver of the truck, negligent for the said accident. The Insurance Company in its written statement, admitted that the said truck was insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period commencing from 14.4.1993 to 13.4.1994. Thus, on the relevant date of accident i.e. 8.4.1994, the said truck was insured with the appellant Insurance company. While computing the compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation as noticed above in favour of claimants and held the appellant Insurance Company liable to reimburse the entire compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the Insurance Company has filed the aforenoticed three appeals. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned as well as the record of the Tribunal. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company that deceased Harchand Ram, injured Dalla Ram and Padma Ram were not engaged as labourers on the said truck and therefore, the Tribunal fell in error in holding the Insurance Company liable for the compensation awarded. He further contended that the aforenoticed persons were going to their agricultural field situated somewhere in Jaisalmer district and, therefore, they cannot be said to be labourers on the said truck. Learned counsel then relied on the statement of AW 4 Padma Ram, wherein he stated that he was engaged as a labourer on the said truck by AW 1 Vishan Singh and, since Vishan Singh not being the owner of the said truck, these persons cannot be said to have been engaged as labourers by the owner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award impugned and also relied on the statements of the various witnesses of the claimants before the Tribunal. 6. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by the claimants as well as by the Insurance Company. The insurance policy Ex.D/1 is on record, which has been proved by NAW 1 as H.C. Dheengda, Divisional Manager of the appellant Insurance Company. 6. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by the claimants as well as by the Insurance Company. The insurance policy Ex.D/1 is on record, which has been proved by NAW 1 as H.C. Dheengda, Divisional Manager of the appellant Insurance Company. In para 8 of the claim petition, it was pleaded by the claimants that Padma Ram, Dalla Ram, Dama Ram and Harchand Ram were engaged as labourers on truck No. RNQ 7507 and on the relevant date of accident i.e. 8.4.1994, the said truck was loaded with the goods belonging to Vishan Singh from Bhinyana. The said goods were to be carried to the agricultural field of Vishan Singh situated in Jaisalmer District. These four persons were engaged for loading and unloading of the goods in the Truck. AW 1 Vishan Singh also stated before the Tribunal that labourers Padma Ram, Dalla Ram, Harchand Pam and Harkha Ram were on the said truck. AW 2 Ganga Devi widow of deceased Harchand Ram also stated that her husband was labourer on the said truck, which was carrying goods belonging to Vishan Singh. AW 3 Dalla Ram stated that he has been engaged as a labourer on the said truck for last 2-3 months along with other labourers noticed before above. AW 4 Padma Ram also made a similar statement and stated that he was engaged as a labourer on the said truck. He further stated that he was permanent labourer on the said truck. 7. As against the evidence of the witnesses produced by the claimants, to the Insurance Company produced NAW 1 N.C. Dheengda, Divisional Manager. He admitted in his statement that the Insurance Company undertook the liability for six labourers engaged on the truck by the owner. Thus, the liability for six labourers in the said truck has not been disputed. On the contrary, in specific terms, the witness produced by the Insurance Company has admitted the liability of appellant Insurance Company. The witness produced by the insurance company nowhere said that the aforesaid in used and the deceased person were not engaged as labourers on the said trick. The liability of the Insurance Company has not been disputed. Not only this, the Insurance Company has not disputed that the aforesaid persons were carried in the said truck as labourers. The witness produced by the insurance company nowhere said that the aforesaid in used and the deceased person were not engaged as labourers on the said trick. The liability of the Insurance Company has not been disputed. Not only this, the Insurance Company has not disputed that the aforesaid persons were carried in the said truck as labourers. This being the position, now the Insurance Company cannot pick a line from the statements of some of the witnesses produced by the claimants saying that these persons were not engaged by the owner of the said truck. From the reliable evidence, the claimants succeeded in establishing the fact that deceased Harchand Ram and injured Dalla Ram and Padma Ram were very much engaged as labourers on the relevant date of the accident on the said truck. Not only this, they have been continuously engaged as labourers on the said truck if not more, than at least preceding 2-3 months of the accident. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has no foundation and is liable to be rejected. 8. No other point was argued. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in these appeals filed by the Insurance Company. Accordingly, they are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Appeals Dismissed. *******