Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 286 (RAJ)

National Ins. Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Devi

2015-01-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award passed by learned Judge, MACT. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21-6-1998 deceased Bhagwan Sahai was going along-with his companion on motor cycle to his village Surana. No sooner did he go ahead Chandwaji Petrol Pump, the respondent No. 1 had laid his truck on the road, in which neither red light was on nor indicators were put on the road, suddenly two-three vehicles came with flood light, as a result of which Bhagwan Sahai could not see the laying truck, due to which he collided with the truck and died and his companion died in the hospital. 3. Thereafter claim petition was filed; certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 8-11-2006, awarding Rs.2,44,000/- as compensation in favour of claimants. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Co. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has summarily dismissed the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC without taking into consideration the submissions made therein. He has further contended that the said insured vehicle was under the custody of the police authorities a day prior to the date of accident for an incident occurred on a previous day, thus the learned Tribunal ignoring the provisions of Cr.P.C. as well as the Act has given its contrary finding in issue Nos. 1 and 2 holding the insured to be liable for the present accident. It was the Police authorities, who failed to put the insured vehicle in a safe condition and it was on the negligence of their part, which had resulted into the present accident, contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and MV Act. Hence, the Police authorities were liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the claimant. He has further contended that as observed in previous Award dated 5-7-1995 in para No. 1, one Constable No. 894 Chiranji Lal was deputed on the said vehicle. Thus, in view of the provisions of Section 102, Cr. P.C. and Section 81 of the MV Act, the necessary parties were to be impleaded in the present array of the respondents and they were liable to pay the compensation. Thus, in view of the provisions of Section 102, Cr. P.C. and Section 81 of the MV Act, the necessary parties were to be impleaded in the present array of the respondents and they were liable to pay the compensation. He has further contended that the Tribunal has granted 6% and 9% interest in the claim petition, but it has also been ordered that if the award is not complied within a period of 45 days, then as a penal interest, the interest rate shall be enhanced from 9% to 12%. Thus, imposing such type of penalty by the MACT on the Insurance Company is without any basis and justification. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and award and stated the same to be just and proper. He has further contended that so far as Chiranji Lal, constable is concerned, he had not been examined by the Insurance Co. in their defence, whereas they were given opportunity to do so. He has further contended that merely on the fact that owner had informed to the police and the vehicle had come into the custody of the police, he cannot be absolved from his liability because vehicle owner always remains the vehicle owner and the person in whose possession the vehicle comes for a short duration, cannot become the absolute owner of the vehicle. From perusal of Ex. 5, the owner of the offending vehicle was rightly made the party. The Tribunal on the basis of age and income of the deceased and having applied the multiplier of 16, rightly computed the quantum of compensation. He has further contended that the accident in question took place bout 27 years ago, hence, no interference is required by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgment and award. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgment and award. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. I am in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, hence I do not think it just and proper to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and thus the appeal filed by the Insurance Co. is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.