Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1882 (RAJ)

Varun Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Rekha

2012-09-04

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - M/s. Varuna Road Lines Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (in short owner of the vehicle) filed the above two misc. appeals under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the common award dated 26.5.2012 of the Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Tonk) ( in short MACT) in Claim Cases Nos.65/2010 (341/2007) and 66/2010 (347/2007) awarding Rs. 6,75,000 and Rs. 6,70,000/- to the claimants (Smt. Rekha, Manisha, Swaroop Singh, and Smt. Lacha (claimant- respondents in appeal No. 3303/2012) and Ganga Devi, Pooja, Mukesh and Shobha (claimant respondents in appeal No. 3305/2012), who are legal representatives of deceased Madho Singh and Ranu Singh, who died in the accident (in short claimants). Since these two appeals arise from a common award, it will be proper for this Court to decide the appeals by this common order. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned interim award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. It may be mentioned that the earlier award passed in the Claim Cases Nos.65/2010 (341/2007) and 66/2010 (347/2007) filed by the dependents of the deceased, was challenged by the present appellants before this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals Nos. 2692 and 2693 of 2011. This Curt vide order dated 13.7.2011 remanded the matter to the MACT to decide the issues 1,2, and 4 afresh in the light of the judgment reported in 2011 RAR 225 and the parties were directed to appear before the MACT on 12.12.2011 and further the MACT was directed to decide the matter within a period of six months. The MACT decided the issues 1,2 and 4 after hearing all the parties. The MACT considered the judgments submitted by the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the MACT has not properly considered the arguments and the evidence on record while deciding the issues 1, 2 and 4 afresh in view of the order of remand passed by this court on the earlier appeals filed by the present appellants. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The MACT passed the award dated 26.5.2012 after hearing the counsel for all the parties including the appellants. The appellants have been rightly held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The MACT passed the award dated 26.5.2012 after hearing the counsel for all the parties including the appellants. The appellants have been rightly held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The MACT in detail after considering the evidence on record decided the issues 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants. As per the income earning by the deceased the MACT awarded the compensation to the claimants. The MACT also after considering the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the owner of the vehicle produced only one cover note stating that it has also covered the insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident. Actually the owner of the vehicle has not been able to produce the insurance policy or the cover note by which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the insurance company and the issue No.4 was decided in favour of the insurance company and the vehicle owner was made liable to pay the compensation. Actually the owner of the vehicle has not been able to produce the insurance policy or the cover note by which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the insurance company and the issue No.4 was decided in favour of the insurance company and the vehicle owner was made liable to pay the compensation. The MACT in the award dated 26.5.2012 observed as under : " chek daiuh ds }kjk Li"V rkSj ij ,d gh V~d dh ikWfylh tkjh gksus dh ckr dgh gS vkSj ,d gh doj uksV dk tkjh gksuk dgk gS vkSj izn'kZ 7 doj uksV izn'kZ ,0 1 ikWfylh dk og izn'kZ ,0 2 ikWfylh dk gksuk dgk gS] ftlesa doj uksV dh lekurk ds vfrfjDr okgu dk uacj ,p vkj 55 Mh 8488 gh vafdr gS] blds vfrfjDr nwljs V~d dk pSfll] ftls izkFkhZ ds }kjk nks V~dksa ds nks doj uksV tkjh gksus dh ckr dgh xbZ gS] izkFkhZ ds }kjk is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ tgka vius ,d gh doj uksV] ,d gh ikWfylh tkjh gksus ds rF; dks izekf.kr djus esa lQy jgk gS] mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fuf'pr rkSj ij nwljs doj uksV ds lanHkZ esa nwljs pSd uacj dks is'k djus dh ftEesnkjh vizkFkhZ la0 2 ij flQ~V gks tkrh gS] tks oks dj ugha ldk gSA vr% ;g rudh la0 4 vizkFkhZ la0 3 ds i{k esa lkfcr ik;h tkrh gS vkSj ;g lkfcr ik;h tkrh gS fd ,p0vkj0 55 Mh 7399 ds chek dk dksbZ doj uksV vkSj dksbZ ikWfylh tkjh ugha dh xbZ vkSj ;g V~d vizkFkhZ la0 3 ds ikl chehr ugha gSA mDrkuqlkj ;g rudh vizkFkhZ la0 3 ds i{k esa lkfcr ik;h tkrh gSA vr% mijksDrkuqlkj rudh la0 1 o 2 izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa o rudh la0 4 vizkFkhZ la0 3 ds i{k esa lkfcr ikbZ tkdj r; dh tkrh gSA " 6. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the MACT. The findings recorded by the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The common award passed by the MACT is just and proper and no interference is called for in the award passed by the MACT. The appeals being devoid of merit stand rejected. 7. With the above observations these misc. appeals stand rejected.Appeals dismissed. *******