Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2484 (RAJ)

Saiyed Maqsud Ali v. Manju Devi

2009-12-03

VINEET KOTHARI

body2009
Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—Heard the learned counsels. 2. This appeal has been filed by the owner of the truck being aggrieved by the award dtd.14.2.1997 passed by the MACT, Sojat deciding claim Case No.238/1992. 3. In an accident which took place on 12.12.1989 when the jeep tracker No. RST 6609 being driven by the respondent No.7 Bheru Singh, when it was hit by the truck No. RRZ 951 being driven by respondent No.6 Shamsuddin, the deceased Suresh Chandra who was travelling in the said jeep died. 4. The learned Tribunal found that the place where the said accident too place, the road work was going on and there was thus only single way left on the road side of about 370 ft., out of which the jeep in question had travelled about 200 ft. and gave signal by light by deeper and without noticing the same, the truck driver coming from opposite side, hit the said jeep in front head-on collision. The learned Tribunal also found that the owner of the truck while producing the insurance cover note had manipulated the period of insurance which was shown in the insurance policy produced by the Insurance Company as 7.12.88 to 6.12.89, whereas the owner of the truck produced copy of the cover note showing the period of insurance as 17.12.1988 to 16.12.1989. The learned Tribunal found that by inserting figure 1 (one) before the date of commencement and date of expiry in the Insurance Policy, the truck owner wanted to hold responsible, the United India Insurance Company, which was exonerated by the learned Tribunal after giving its findings about such interpolation of figure 1 (one) in the cover note. The learned Tribunal also found that on account of contributory negligence of both the drivers, the truck in question was held liable to the extent of 75% and the driver of the jeep was held liable to the extent of 25% of contributory negligence. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,23,000/- for the said death of Suresh chandra. 5. The owner of the truck has approached this Court by way of present appeal. 6. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,23,000/- for the said death of Suresh chandra. 5. The owner of the truck has approached this Court by way of present appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents for the respondent No.8 and having gone through the impugned order and the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that findings of facts returned by the learned Tribunal is based on cogent material and the evidence before it and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference in the impugned award is called for by this Court in the present appeal. 7. As far as findings of contributory negligence is concerned, it appears to this Court that the jeep driver having crossed more than ½ of the said one way of the road on account of PWD work going on and despite light signals being given with the help of deeper, the truck driver did not take enough care to prevent that accident and thus the said accident was caused. The learned Tribunal has held the truck driver responsible to the extent of 75% and 25% to the driver of the jeep. The findings of contributory negligence therefore, cannot be faulted and the same deserve to be upheld. 8. As far as findings of manipulation in the Insurance Cover is concerned, this Court has also perused both the cover note produced by the owner of the truck and the Insurance Policy produced by the Insurance Company and it prima facie appears that the figure 1 (one) was inserted by the truck owner with an intention to cover the accident in question which took place on 13.12.1989 in a case where the insurance policy had expired on 6.12.1989. The findings of the learned Tribunal on this issue is also based on relevant evidence and therefore, the same cannot be faulted. Therefore, this Court does not find any force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.