Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1498 (RAJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gaura Devi

2012-07-05

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal filed by the appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sikar, the appellant company is challenging judgment and award dated 7.1.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ratangarh in claim Case No. 22/2009, by which, compensation of Rs. 4,52,000/- has been awarded by the Claim Tribunal. 2. As per facts of the case, a claim petition was filed by respondent-claimant under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in which, it is stated that on 25.1.2009, at about 9 P.M. in the night, deceased Hari Ram was going on motorcycle No. RI-23A-SA-6265 on the way in- between Ratangarh to Sardarshahar, On the way, one Truck No. RJ-31-GA-1113 was left idle putting stones on the backside of it on the road and due to the darkness in the night and heavy fog, the motor-cycle collided with the said truck and, in that accident, Hari Ram died on the spot. 3. Deceased Hari Ram was earning his livelihood by preparing sweets and he was getting Rs. 6,000/- per month. Therefore, in the claim petition, the claimants prayed for claim of Rs. 9,95,000/- The Claim Tribunal after due trial awarded compensation of Rs. 4,52,000/- vide the impugned judgment dated 7.1.2012. 4. Appellant Insurance Company is challenging the validity of the aforesaid award on the ground that the accident took place due to negligence of deceased Hari Ram himself because as per the site-plan the vehicle was not, standing in the middle of the road but was left in one side of the road, however, this aspect of the factual position has not been properly considered, therefore, the award impugned deserved to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that as per the site-plan upon the mega-highway the vehicle was standing and it was duty of late Hari Ram himself to drive the vehicle in disciplined manner but due to his rash and negligent act the occurrence took place, therefore, the ground taken for claim is totally unfounded. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be quashed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, i have perused the award impugned. 7. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be quashed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, i have perused the award impugned. 7. The Claim Tribunal after framing four issues recorded evidence of both the sides and while deciding issue No. 1 the Claim Tribunal categorically held that the appellant Insurance Company has not produced any evidence to prove that any back-light or indicator was turned on upon the offending vehicle which was standing on the road. The offending truck was left stationary of the road in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. If the truck was not in running condition, then, it was the duty of the truck owner/driver to keep the back-light/parking-lights and indicator turned on to alert other vehicles passing along the road, Obviously, the offending vehicle was left standing on the road negligently, therefore, in the night the occurrence took place in which Hari Ram died. In my opinion, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to negligence on the part of the truck owner/driver does not suffer from any illegality. 8. With regard to issue No. 3, it is specifically observed by the Claim Tribunal that no evidence has been produced by the appellant Insurance Company in support of their objection raised in the written-statement. In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly assessed that due to negligent act on the part of the driver and owner of the offending truck the accident took place in which Hari Ram lost his life. After perusing the site-plan I am of the opinion that there is complete fallacy in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant because half of the vehicle was standing on the road which is mega-highway without any back-light parking-light and indicator. 9. Learned Claim Tribunal while calculating income of the deceases as Rs. 3,000/- deducted one-third amount towards expenses incurred on self and, after calculating the dependency-applied multiplier of 16 for awarding the compensation. In my opinion, there is no error apparent or perversity in the finding given by the Claim Tribunal for awarding compensation because admittedly the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent act of the driver/owner of the offending vehicle. In the view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the award impugned. 10. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******