Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 794 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Babulal

2011-04-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—All these misc. appeals arise out of common facts and award, hence same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. All these misc. appeals have been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the award dated 18.5.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur (for short, 'the learned Tribunal') by which he passed the following award: In Claim Case No. 43/2004 : 3. Awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. In Claim Case No.42/2004 4. Awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. In Claim Case No.45/2004 5. Awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. In Claim Case No.41/2004 6. Awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,05,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. 7. 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 is rash and negligent manner. As per the claim petition when at 7.00 p.m. jeep reached near pound at Bhadoti, tractor No.RJ-25-R-4398 came from front side having fitted a trolley 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. 8. 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. Facts of CMA No. 1280/2004 : 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious in not considering the material and evidence available on record in its true and legal perspec-tive and passed the impugned award in a cursory manner. The aforesaid accident took place in Madhya Pradesh and not in Rajasthan. Facts of CMA No. 1280/2004 : 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious in not considering the material and evidence available on record in its true and legal perspec-tive and passed the impugned award in a cursory manner. The aforesaid accident took place in Madhya Pradesh and not in Rajasthan. The learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law by holding the negligence to the extent of 75% of the driver of the truck which was insured with the appellant. It has committed serious error of law by awarding 9% p.a. interest because the prevailing interest rate of the Reserve Bank has been lowered down. It has committed illegality in entertaining and allowing claim petitions as drivers of both the vehicles have not been arrayed as parties to the claim petition. It ignored the fact that no driving licence has been produced which shows that the driver was not having valid and effect driving licence. Lastly, he sub-mits that the impugned award has been passed only on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside qua the insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents claimants have seriously opposed the afore-mentioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award after properly considering the evidence submitted by both the parties and thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. Facts of CMA No. 1324/2004 : 11. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious in not considering the material and evidence available on record in its true and legal perspective and passed the impugned award in a cursory manner. The aforesaid accident took place in Madhya Pradesh and not in Rajasthan. The learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law by holding the negligence to the extent of 75% of the driver of the truck which was insured with the appellant. It has committed serious error of law by awarding 9% p.a. interest because the prevailing interest rate of the Reserve Bank has been lowered down. It has committed illegality in entertaining and allowing claim petitions as drivers of both the vehicles have not been arrayed as parties to the claim petition. It has committed serious error of law by awarding 9% p.a. interest because the prevailing interest rate of the Reserve Bank has been lowered down. It has committed illegality in entertaining and allowing claim petitions as drivers of both the vehicles have not been arrayed as parties to the claim petition. It ignored the fact that no driving licence has been produced which shows that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. Lastly, he submits that the impugned award has been passed only on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside qua the insurance company. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents claimants have seriously opposed the afore-mentioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award after properly considering the evidence submitted by both the parties and thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. Facts of CMS No. 1362/2004 : 13. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious in not considering the material and evidence available on record in its true and legal perspective and passed the impugned award in a cursory manner. The aforesaid accident took place in Madhya Pradesh and not in Rajasthan. The learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law by holding the negligence to the extent of 75% of the driver of the truck which was insured with the appellant. It has committed serious error of law by awarding 9% p.a. interest because the prevailing interest rate of the Reserve Bank has been lowered down. It has committed illegality in entertaining and allowing claim petitions as drivers of both the vehicles have not been arrayed as parties to the claim petition. It ignored the fact that no driving licence has been produced which shows that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. Lastly, he submits that the impugned award has been passed only on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside qua the insurance company. 14. Lastly, he submits that the impugned award has been passed only on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside qua the insurance company. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents claimants have seriously opposed the afore-mentioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award after properly considering the evidence submitted by both the parties and thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. Facts of CMA No. 1417/2004 : 15. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious in not considering the material and evidence available on record in its true and legal perspec-tive and passed the impugned award in a cursory manner. The aforesaid accident took place in Madhya Pradesh and not in Rajasthan. There is no cogent and convincing evidence like income tax certificate to prove such income of the deceased and as such the awarded amount is on higher side. The learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law by holding the negligence to the extent of 75% of the driver of the truck which was insured with the appellant. It has committed serious error of law by awarding 9% p.a. interest because the prevailing interest rate of the Reserve Bank has been lowered down. It has committed illegality in entertaining and allowing claim petitions as drivers of both the vehicles have not been arrayed as parties to the claim petition. It ignored the fact that no driving licence has been produced which shows that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. Lastly, he sub-mits that the impugned award has been passed only on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside qua the insurance company. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents claimants have seriously opposed the afore-mentioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award after properly considering the evidence submitted by both the parties and thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. 17. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 17. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 18. 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. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court.