Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2680 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudha Khandelwal

2008-12-11

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. On the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. 4. The appellant has preferred this appeal against impugned award dated 4th December, 2004 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,67,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondent for death of Kumari Tushi in motor accident took place on 26th January, 2001. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent no. 1 filed an application for compensation under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation in respect of death of her daughter Kumari Tushi, who died in motor accident took place on 26th January, 2001. It was pleaded that Kumari Tushi was going on her scooty No. RJ 14-28M-8983 for tuition to Sanganer and at about 6.30 AM a bus dashed her scooty from her back resulting in her death. The owner of the vehicle did not file any reply to the claim application and an ex-parte order was passed against him. The Insurance Company filed its written-reply and contested the claim application. The learned Tribunal framed five issues. The applicants examined AW-1 Sudha Khandelwal, AW-2, Ritu Gupta, AW-3 Rajendra Prasad Gupta, AW-4 S.P. Gupta and produced the documentary evidence Ex. 1 to Ex. 35. The Insurance Company did not led any oral or documentary evidence in support of their case. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and against the non claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- as compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 10th April, 2001. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and without recording any finding about negligence on the part of the bus driver, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation in favour of claimant-respondent, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set-aside by this Court. 7. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and without recording any finding about negligence on the part of the bus driver, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation in favour of claimant-respondent, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set-aside by this Court. 7. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent contended that it was an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein the negligence of the vehicle driver is not required to be proved and claimant is required to prove only the involvement of the vehicle which is proved in the present case as per finding of the learned Tribunal and further that learned counsel for the appellant has also not challenged that aspect of the matter. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed as such. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award as well as the record of the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued only one point i.e. about negligence of the vehicle driver i.e. bus and no other submission has been made on behalf of the appellant. 10. From the record as well as the impugned award, it is clear that the application for compensation was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein the claimant is not required to prove the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. It is relevant to mention that no issue was framed by the Tribunal also regarding negligence of the driver of the bus. So far as involvement of the vehicle is concerned, the same is proved from the applicants' evidence and there is a finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard also, which has not been challenged by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also admits that vehicle in question was insured with them. 11. In view of above, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal was fully justified in passing the award in favour of the claimant after recording its finding about involvement of the vehicle and further that vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company. 12. 11. In view of above, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal was fully justified in passing the award in favour of the claimant after recording its finding about involvement of the vehicle and further that vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company. 12. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******