Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1154 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niyamat Khan

2011-05-26

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This misc. appeals has been filed by the appellant 7.5.2003 against the award dated 7.5.2003 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran (for short 'the learned Tribunal') in claim petition No. 26/2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.2.2000 deceased was travelling in Jeep No. MP-25-9839 along with cartoon of eggs to Gugor fair. Due to rash and negligent driving deceased fell from the jeep resulting in death. 3. FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimants respondents filed claim petition before he learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned award. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding issue Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 9 against the Insurance Co. The vehicle was not adapted for the purposes of carrying passengers and further more the said vehicle was not registered as a public carrier and was not having any permit or authority to drive the vehicle for hire and reward. The insurance policy Ex.A3/1 was also having a clause of limitation to use and thus since the vehicle is being used against the registration and also the against the terms and conditions of the policy and Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Mr. Sabir Khan in his statement has stated that the jeep was carrying about 20 passengers on fare. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside. 5. In support of his case, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and Others, JT 2002(10) SC 162. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents claimants has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company and submits that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award after property considering the evidence submitted by both the parties. Hence, no interference is required to be made in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. In support of his case, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Darshana Devi and others, 2008 DNJ (SC) 438. 8. Hence, no interference is required to be made in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. In support of his case, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Darshana Devi and others, 2008 DNJ (SC) 438. 8. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also after carefully scanning the entire material made available to me, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has rightly. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 9. In the result, this misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed after confirming the award dated 7.5.2003 against the award dated 7.5.2003 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran in Claim Petition No. 26/2000.