Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1486 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Jodhpur v. Mohan Lal

2012-07-04

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 17.3.2012 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Claim Case No. 130/2009, by which, the Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,47,956/- to the respondent-claimants. 2. As per facts of the case, the father of respondent-claimants met with an accident on 22.2.2005 at about 6.30 P.M. when he was going from Suncity Handicraft upon his Moped No. RJ-19-19M-0544 to his home and when he reached near Jai Bhawani Hotel a Gas Tanker No. RJ-25-G-1026 hit the Moped of deceased Panna Lal father of claimants, which was driven by the driver of the said vehicle rashly and negligently. 3. After accident, Panna Lal father of claimants was taken to the Mathuradas Mathur Hospital, Jodhpur where during treatment he died. 4. The claimants being dependent of late Panna Lal filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (First), Jodhpur. The Claim Tribunal after issuing notice vide judgment dated 17.3.2012 awarded compensation of Rs. 4,47,956/- in favour of claimants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that out of three claimants, two are married daughters of late Panna Lal, therefore, they were not dependant of late Panna Lal and claimant No. 1 Mohan Lal is son of late Panna Lal, who was 24 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the award impugned is not sustainable in the law and the same may be quashed. 6. I have perused the award impugned. 7. In My opinion, the grounds taken by the Insurance Company in this appeal are not sustainable because admittedly late Panna Lal was father of all the claimants and claimant No. 1 Mohan Lal is son of late Panna Lal and he was fully dependent upon him, therefore, it cannot be said that Claim Tribunal has ignored any fact or evidence at the time of deciding claim petition. The finding which is based upon evidence on record does not suffer from any illegality, more so, the Claim Tribunal has assessed the income of late Panna Lal in proper manner for granting compensation and while following the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases granted compensation of Rs. 4,47,956/-, in which, there is no error. 8. The finding which is based upon evidence on record does not suffer from any illegality, more so, the Claim Tribunal has assessed the income of late Panna Lal in proper manner for granting compensation and while following the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases granted compensation of Rs. 4,47,956/-, in which, there is no error. 8. In view of the above facts, I see no reason to interfere in this appeal because there is no illegality or perversity in the finding.given by the Claim Tribunal. Hence, this misc. appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******