Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1780 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Omprakash Jangid

2012-08-17

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - All the aforesaid three appeals and one cross-objection are related to the judgment and award dated 6.2.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur hence they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Two Claim Petition Nos. 113A/2004 (1653/1999) and 113/2004 (1222/1999) were filed by Smt. Santra and others and Om Prakash respectively. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.5.1999 deceased Om Prakash Jangid was travelling in a Maruti Car bearing No. RJ-14-2C-9604 from Jhunjhunu to Jaipur. When the car crossed Govindgarh, a bus bearing No. RJ-13P-1052 was stationary alongwith a tractor and on the side road, one Military Car was plying and due to lights of the vehicles, the driver of the Maruti Car hit the bus from its back side. The driver of the Maruti Car Om Prakash received serious injuries and succumbed to death. 4. Thereafter F.I.R. was lodged, Claim Petition Nos. 113A/2004 and 113/2004 were filed. Claim Petition No. 113A/2004 is related to death case, whereas claim petition No. 113/2004 is related to injury case. Thereafter the notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was recorded as submitted by the respective parties. After hearing both the sides, the impugned award has been passed by the, learned Tribunal. In Claim Petition No. 113/2004, Rs. 50,000/- have been awarded by the learned Tribunal while in Claim Petition No. 113A/2004, Rs. 6,37,000/- have been awarded in favour of claimants. Against the said award, Appeals No. 8277/2011 and 819/2004 have been filed by the Insurance Company. Smt. Santra Devi and others, who are the claimants appellants have also filed CMA No. 843/2004. In the aforesaid Appeal No. 843/2004, the Insurance Company has filed.the cross-objections. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has passed the award dated 6.2.2004 erroneously because the evidence which has been submitted by the Insurance Company has not been properly appreciated. Learned counsel has contended that while describing the factum of accident, it was stated that the Maruti Car hit the stationary bus to its backside and one tractor was also parked nearby the bus and on the side road, one Military Car was also plying. Due to lights of the vehicle, the Maruti Car collided with the Bus, but this fact was not considered by the Tribunal, although the Insurance Company submitted the evidence. Due to lights of the vehicle, the Maruti Car collided with the Bus, but this fact was not considered by the Tribunal, although the Insurance Company submitted the evidence. Learned Counsel also contended that the Tribunal did not consider the settled principle of law that normally when a vehicle hits another vehicle from behind, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is applicable. He has further contended that the amount, which has been awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. He further contended that the Insurance Company is not liable for the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Car, hence the impugned award be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments : 1. 2009 ACJ (3) 2003 (SC), Raj Rani & Ors. v. OIC. 2. 2011 ACJ 1677 (SC), Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain. 3. 2010 ACJ 1245 (SC),Manam Saraswati v. Manager, Andhra Pradesh. 4. 1994 ACJ 136 (Delhi), DTC v. Leelawati & Ors. 5. 1985 ACJ 23 (Raj.), Yashwant Raj v. Mohan Lal & Ors. 6. 2004(2) SCC 370 (SC), NIC v. Keshav Bahadur. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants Smt. Santra Devi and others has contended that the award which has been passed by the Tribunal is not based upon the material available on record, hence it should be modified and enhanced. He has further contended that the Tribunal has not accepted the evidence oral as well as documentary submitted by the claimants regarding the income of the deceased Om Prakasli. He has further contended that the Tribunal has not accepted the evidence of AW-3 Vinay Goyal, who is a Chartered Accountant. He stated that deceased Om Prakash was running a business in the name of Om Decorator and his income tax return was submitted by M/s. Vinod Singhal & Co. This witness also exhibited and verified the income tax return of the deceased Om Prakash from Ex.9 to 19. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 8. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 8. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, all the three appeals and the cross objections being bereft of any substance deserves to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.Consequently, stay applications filed herewith also stand dismissed.Appeals and cross-objection dismissed. *******