Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 962 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi Bai

2011-05-09

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Both the misc. appeals and cross-objection arise out of common judgment and award dated 3.2.2005 passed by learned Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar (for short 'the learned Tribunal'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.8.2001 at 5.15 p.m., the claimant was sitting in the truck bearing No. RJ-20-G-3376 as gratuitous passenger. The driver of the truck in question was driving rashly and negligently. When it reached near Khandiya Naka Road, the driver of the truck hit the rear part of the motor cycle which was going ahead. After committing accident driver of the truck lost his control of the truck and dashed to the octroi's room resulting in Guddi Bai who was sitting in the truck as a passenger got grievous injuries on the various parts of the body. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. 3. FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimants respondents filed claim petitions before the 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, these two misc. appeals and one cross-objection before this Court. Facts of misc. appeal No. 1062/2006 : 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has not rightly appreciated the evidence of claimant appellant Guddi Bai. Guddi Bai admitted in the cross-examination that she was traveling in the truck by paying fare. Therefore, in view of the statement made by the Guddi Bai the award/judgment dated 3.2.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Tribunal has made a legal mistake in reaching into conclusion that the terms and conditions were not breached intentionally. The learned Tribunal while awarding interest @ 6% p.a. On the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition has made a legal mistake in view of the Judgment passed in S.B.C.M.A. No. 719/2000 Smt. Pusi vs. Kulwant Singh and Others. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal be quashed and set aside and the appellant Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 5. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal be quashed and set aside and the appellant Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent claimant has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned award after properly appreciating the evidence submitted by both the parties. Hence, the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. Facts of misc. appeal No. 1148/2006 : 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal made a legal mistake in not considering the averments made in not considering the averments made by the claimant in para No.23 in the claim petition. The claimant himself stated in the para No. 23 in the claim petition that he was sitting in the truck bearing No. RJ-20-G-3376 as second driver. Therefore, in view of the averments made in para No.23 of the claim petition, the judgment and award dated 3.2.2005 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Tribunal while awarding interest @ 6% p.a. On the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition has made a legal mistake in view of the judgment passed in S.B.C.M.A. No. 719/2000 Smt. Pusi vs. Kulwant Singh and others. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal be quashed and set aside and the appellant Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. Facts in Cross-Objection No. 154/2009 : 7. Learned counsel for the cross-objector No.1 submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in only awarding Rs. 1,51,000/- as compensation to the claimant respondent and in dismissing the rest of the claim is patently illegal and erroneous. the left leg of claimant respondent was imputed and there was 60% permanent disability. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the judgments rendered by this Court. As per the evidence, the respondent No.1 was entitled to get the said amount from the respondents, but the learned Tribunal has arbitrarily reduced the said amount and has granted an award of Rs. 1,51,000/- by drastically reducing the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant, which is wholly illegal. 8. As per the evidence, the respondent No.1 was entitled to get the said amount from the respondents, but the learned Tribunal has arbitrarily reduced the said amount and has granted an award of Rs. 1,51,000/- by drastically reducing the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant, which is wholly illegal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has controverted the aforementioned submissions advance by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and submits that the impugned judgment / award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent and the learned counsel appearing in the cross-objection. 10. 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 needs no interference of this Court. 11. In the result, both the misc. appeals and cross-objection are devoid of merits and stand dismissed after confirming the award dated 3.2.2005 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar. Since the main appeals have been dismissed, the stay applications also stand dismissed.