Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 487 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Heer Singh

2012-02-21

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 19.2.1998 rendered by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar, whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- in favour of claimant-respondent and against the insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the owner of the offending vehicle was Chhuttan Lal. The appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation as the insurance policy was issued to cover the risk of owner of bus, whereas the offending vehicle was being used by RSRTC at the time of accident. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned award, it is noticed that the claimant sustained 48% permanent disability in the accident which took place on 18.8.1992. As per Disability Certificate (Ex.-51), there was no movement in the fingers and thumb of left hand of claimant. 4. So far as the argument put forth by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is noticed that once the appellant-insurance company had charged the premium for the offending vehicle, the defence as set-out by appellant-Insurance Company was not available to it. Since the Insurance Company had charged the premium, it was liable to pay the quantum of compensation. 5. Learned Tribunal having analyzed the matter in detail, decreed an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses incurred on the treatment of the claimant; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards 48% permanent disability; and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental pain and agony. The learned Tribunal is found to have rightly awarded Rs. 1,45,000/- to be the quantum of compensation. The findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are just and apt. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly apposite and it does not warrant any intervention. 6. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Misc. Appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 7. Consequent upon the dismissal of Civil Misc. Appeal, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.