Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 569 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anita Devi

2011-03-15

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 24.7.2000 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short, 'the learned Tribunal') in claim petition No. 270/1990. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased was going along with his cousin brother Raj Kumar on scooter No. RNL 5559 on 10.12.1998 at around 8-9 p.m. The deceased was going to distribute the cards relating to the marriage of the two of his real brothers. The aforesaid scooter was being driven by deceased himself and the cousin brother thereof was the pillion rider. When the deceased approached the railway crossing on the New Sanganer Road, in the directions of Sanganer Town, a scooter No. RJ-14/12M-7186 being driven rashly and negligently came suddenly from the left hand side and struck the scooter being driven by the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid collision, the deceased and his cousin brother fell down, grievous injuries were received by the deceased and on account of which injuries, the deceased expired while being admitted in the hospital. 3. FIR was lodged regarding his incident. Thereafter, claimants appellants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed by respondent No.5. 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 while passing the impugned award has not considered the facts of the case and statements of the witnesses. The learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident in question arose on account of the sole negligence of the driver cum owner of the offending scooter. He submits that negligence has been proved by the appellant through oral evidence but the learned Tribunal has not considered the same. he has drawn attention of court to the statement of AW-2 Rajkumar as also of the FIR. The learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month and the said assumption was not based on any evidence on record. 5. he has drawn attention of court to the statement of AW-2 Rajkumar as also of the FIR. The learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month and the said assumption was not based on any evidence on record. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award after properly considering the statements of the witnesses and other material made available to it. He submits that the aforesaid accident took place on 7.12.1998 i.e. near about 14 years ago from today and since then the appellants are facing mental agony. Lastly, he submits that the claimant has received the amount of compensation by way of attachment. 6. 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 passed the impugned award. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. In the result, this misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed after confirming the award dated 24.7.2000 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short, 'the learned Tribunal') in claim petition No. 270/1990.