Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 690 (RAJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramjilal

2011-03-31

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—All the three misc. appeals arise out of common facts and award, hence same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. All three misc. appeals have been filed by the appellant against the award dated 28.11.2000 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (for short 'the learned Tribunal') by which he passed the following award : In Claim Case No. 10/2000 : Rs. 90,356/- as compensation to the claimants-respondents. In Claim Case No. 138/1999 : Rs. 1,51,000/- as compensation to the claimants-respondents. In Claim Case No. 221/1999 : Rs. 70,331/- as compensation to the claimants-respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Arjun, Surjan, Gajanand, Angad and Asharam were going in jeep No. RNC 708 from Ajnoti to Karel in a marriage. The jeep belonged to Asharam and Asharam himself was driving the same in rash and negligent manner. As a per the claim petition when at 7.00 p.m. jeep reached near pound at Bhadoti, tractor No. RJ-25R-4398 came from front side having fitted a trolly and dashed to the jeep with a force, due to which persons sitting in the jeep sustained injuries including the claimant and due to the injuries, Surjan expired at General Hospital, Sawaimadhopur on 17.4.1999 at 9.00 p.m. 4. FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimants respondents filed separate claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. Evidence was submitted from both the sides. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned award. Hence, these three misc. appeals before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error by not considering that no liability can be casted upon the insurance company for the day of accident i.e. 17.4.1999 because no risk was covered for that day. The tractor in question was hypothecated with the Financer Bank who signed the personal from in which risk of the tractor was covered for the period of 18.4.1999 to 17.4.2000. The risk of the vehicle in question was not covered under the policy for 17.4.1999 to the insurance cover commences from 18.4.1999 to 17.4.2000 and the accident took place on 17.4.1999. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside and the insurance company be exonerated from its liability. 6. The risk of the vehicle in question was not covered under the policy for 17.4.1999 to the insurance cover commences from 18.4.1999 to 17.4.2000 and the accident took place on 17.4.1999. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside and the insurance company be exonerated from its liability. 6. In support of his cases, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments : 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi and Others, 1998(1) TAC 697 (SC); 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi and Others, 1997(2) TAC 524 (Delhi); and 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Jijubhai Nathuji Dabhi and Others, II (1996) ACC 694 (SC). 7. Mr. Ashok Gaur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Yogesh Puri, learned counsel for the respondents claimants have seriously opposed the afore-mentioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has drawn attention of the Court to issue No.3 which has been decided against the Insurance Company, which is as under : ^^3- cjoä nq?kZVuk fyIr okgu VªsDVj batu@psfpl ua- ,l-Mh-11398 foi{kh chek dEiuh ds ;gka chfer ugha FkkA ;fn gka rks bldk izHkko\ &chek daiuh** 8. In support of his case, he has placed reliance to the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Dharam Chand & Others, 2010(6) AWC 5941 = 2010(2) CCR 1405 (SC). The Head-note of which is as under : "Motor Vehicles — Claim for compensation — Held, cheque for the premium amount was received by the company the insurance must be deemed to have commenced from that time and four hours later when the vehicle met with the accident, the owner must be deemed to have been covered by the insurance policy. Appeal dismissed." 9. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 10. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also after carefully scanning the entire material made available to me including the record of the case, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award after properly considering the evidence submitted by both the parties. The facts of the cases in hand and the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company are not similar. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 11. The facts of the cases in hand and the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company are not similar. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 11. In the result, all the three misc. appeals filed by the appellant Insurance Company are devoid of merits and stand dismissed after confirming the award 28.11.2000 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur.