Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1869 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raju Lal

2008-08-06

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the award dated 05.07.2006 passed by the Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal, (ADJ Fast Track No.3), Jaipur Distt. Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,50,300/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimant-respondent No.1, Raju lal for the injury suffered by him. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 06.02.2004 Raju Lal was going from village Mali Ki Kothi to Lakhesara. While, he was going, a motor cycle, bearing Registration No.RJ 14-43 M-42-7, being driven rashly and negligently, came from the opposite direction and collided with him. Because of the said collision Raju Lal was thrown far of. He suffered a fracture on his left leg and received grievous injuries on other parts of his body. Subsequently, he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to buttress his case, he examined himself as witness and produced forty-six documents. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, examined two witnesses and submitted two documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the leaned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Since, the insurance Company is aggrieved by the said award, it has filed the present appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. S.R. Jatav, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised three contentions before this Court : firstly, a false case has been fabricated by the claimant-respondent. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that in the FIR, lodged by the Raju Lal S/o Jaman Lal, no vehicle number was given. Secondly, although the accident had occurred on 06.02.2004, the FIR was lodged on 02.03.2004 i.e. after a delay of 25 days. Thirdly, that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid license. Therefore, there is a violation of the insurance policy condition. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable for the payment of the compensation. The learned counsel has frankly stated that the compensation amount has already been paid to the claimant. Therefore, he requests that in case the appellant were to succeed, then the recovery right should be granted to the Insurance Company. 4. Mr. Anoop Agrawal, learned counsel for the claimant, has stated that the contest is between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No.3, therefore, he has nothing much to submit to this Court. 5. 4. Mr. Anoop Agrawal, learned counsel for the claimant, has stated that the contest is between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No.3, therefore, he has nothing much to submit to this Court. 5. According to the report of the Registry, while the power has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the driver of offending vehicle, the notices were duly served on respondent No.3, the owner of the offending vehicle. Even today no one has appeared for either respondent No.2 or No.3 before this Court. Therefore, this Court does not have the benefit of assistance on behalf of the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and for the claimant-respondent No.1 and perused the impugned award and have examined the record. 7. In his statement Raju Lal (A.W.1) has clearly explained the reason for the delay in lodging of the FIR. According to him, initially he did not get himself treated at any hospital. Instead, he went to the local 'Hakim' for the treatment. However, his condition did not improve. Subsequently, he went to the Monilek Hospital. It is only after a period of ten days when he went to Monilek Hospital, he lodged the FIR. Therefore, delay in lodging FIR is well explained by the claimant. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is unacceptable. 8. As far as, the possession of a valid license by the respondent No.2, is concerned, Gajanand Gupta (NAW-2) has clearly stated that as a Investigating Officer for the Insurance Company, he had recorded the statement of Raju Lal, the driver of the offending vehicle. The said statement was produced before the learned Tribunal. Raju Lal, the driver of the offending vehicle, had clearly admitted that at the time of accident, he did not possess a valid license. Since, the said admission was made by the driver of the offending vehicle himself, the Insurance Company had proved the fact that at the time of accident the driver did not possess a valid license. 9. In the case of Sardari & Ors. vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors (MACD 2008 (SC) 102), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in case the driver does not possess a valid license, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 9. In the case of Sardari & Ors. vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors (MACD 2008 (SC) 102), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in case the driver does not possess a valid license, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. Thus, the learned Tribunal should have absolved the Insurance Company of its liability for paying the compensation. However, the leaned Tribunal fail to do so. 10. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. But considering the fact that the Insurance Company has already paid the compensation amount to the claimant, therefore, the Insurance Company is given the recovery right to recover the said compensation amount from respondent No.3 Om Prakash Bairwa. There shall be no order as to costs.