Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 505 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lekh Ram

2011-03-07

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd. against judgment and award dated 30.11.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 (MACT Cases), Jodhpur in case No. 217/ 2008, by which, the Claims Tribunal passed award for compensation of Rs. 7,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent from the date of filing claim petition which is 28.01.2006. Learned tribunal further passed order for allocation of the amount of the claimants. 2. As per facts of the case, on 16.03.2005, at about 7 P.M., deceased Oma Ram & Om Prakash was going on motor cycle bearing No.RJ-19/12M/7747 to Manawas for attending some function. He was sitting on the pillion and Narayan Ram was driving the said motor-cycle. When they reached Dhundhara railway-crossing, the motor-cycle hit an electric pole, due to which, Oma Ram's head dashed against the pole resulting in head injury and he died. The motor-cycle upon which the deceased was riding along with its driver Narayan Ram was insured with the appellant Insurance Company in the name of Om Packers Ge-21-22, RICCO Industries Area, Boranada for the period from 31.12.2004 to 30.12.2005 under package policy after investigation, the police filed challan against Narayan and respondents filed claim petition under Section 166, read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur. 3. The Tribunal issued notice to the insurance company and other respondents and, in pursuance of that, the insurance company filed reply and, so also, filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and said application was allowed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, four issues were framed and, in pursuance of the claim, statements of A.W.-l Lekhram was recorded and 17 documents were exhibited from the side of the claimants but no documentary or oral evidence was filed by the appellant as well as other respondents. 4. Learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and while treating the income of deceased Oma Ram as Rs. 4,500/- per month deducted 1/2 amount while calculating Rs. 3,375/- as monthly income of late Omaram who was 24 years of age at the time of his death allowed compensation multiplying by 18 at Rs. 7,29,000/-and further Rs. Learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and while treating the income of deceased Oma Ram as Rs. 4,500/- per month deducted 1/2 amount while calculating Rs. 3,375/- as monthly income of late Omaram who was 24 years of age at the time of his death allowed compensation multiplying by 18 at Rs. 7,29,000/-and further Rs. 10,000/-towards expenses for last rites and 5,000/- to wife of the deceased for loss of his company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that claimants are not entitled for any compensation because the deceased was travelling as pillion rider along with Narayan Ram for whom no premium was taken by the insurance company. Further, it is argued that the appellant insurance company is not liable for injuries suffered by the pillion rider because the statutory policy did not cover the risk of death or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger but the learned Tribunal without considering the above ground of the insurance company straight away rejected the plea of the insurance company which is totally illegal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has committed gross error while ignoring the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed. It is vehemently argued that the risk of pillion rider or gratuitous passenger is not covered under the policy under which the vehicle in question was insured. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the award impugned. 8. It is obvious from the facts of the case that the appellant insurance company is not disputing the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant company. It is also not in disputes that the accident took place; in which, deceased Omaram received head injury and he died. It is also not disputed that the police filed challan against Narayan Ram but it is also important aspect of the matter that no documentary or oral evidence was produced by the appellant insurance company before the Tribunal to substantiate their argument or ground which is raised now before this Court. In the judgment impugned, it is specifically observed that, " vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ ekSf[kd ;k izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZA " whereas on behalf of the claimants not only statement of A.W.-1 Lekhram was recorded but 17 documents were adduced in evidence. 9. In the judgment impugned, it is specifically observed that, " vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ ekSf[kd ;k izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZA " whereas on behalf of the claimants not only statement of A.W.-1 Lekhram was recorded but 17 documents were adduced in evidence. 9. Ultimately, the Claims Tribunal held that since no evidence has been produced by the insurance company with regard to terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, it cannot be said that claimants are not entitled for claim upon the death of late Omaram. While deciding issue No.2 clear finding has been given by the Claims Tribunal that the insurance company in its reply admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the insurance company but no evidence has been produced with regard to violation any terms and con conditions of the policy although the burden to prove the said issue was upon the insurance company. 10. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, if any claim allowed by the Claims Tribunal in the event of death of young man of 24 years of age having three daughters namely, Deepa, aged 4 years, Mamta aged 2 years and Munna aged 7 months, no error has been committed by the Claims Tribunal. More so, the finding given by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned award. There is thus no force in this appeal.Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******