Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 755 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nenu Devi

2016-05-25

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Goverdhan Bardhar, J. Heard. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance company against the judgment and award dated 11.03.2016 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MACT Case No. 115/2014. 3. As per facts of the case, on 28.05.2014 when the deceased Mange Singh was driving Motor cycle No. RJ 36/SB-8297 from Borimada to Saran, at that time, a Bus No. RJ 22 PA 1653 being driver rash and negligently hit the motorcycle due to which Mange Singh suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant Insurance company filed an application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal and sought permission to have all the defences available to the owner as the non-applicant did not participate effectively during claim proceedings. The learned tribunal allowed the application vide order dated 09.02.2016, therefore, the appellant insurance company has right to challenge the impugned award on the quantum which is on the higher side. It is further argued that tribunal has awarded excessive compensation in a unreasonable manner. The deceased is said to have earning by way of truck driving and learned Tribunal while deciding Issue no.3 concluded his income to be Rs. 9000/- per month, which is on the higher side as no cogent evidence of the earning of deceased was adduced in evidence. Further the rate of interest needs to be fixed in consonance with the prevailing rate of Reserve Bank of India and therefore, awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum is also excessive. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Panwar who has entered caveat on behalf of claimants submits that there has been no violation of the policy conditions, therefore, the Insurance company has no right to challenge the impugned award. The deceased Mange Singh at the time of accident was 44 years of age leaving behind six dependants. He was a registered owner of Tata 407 vehicle No. RJ 22-GA-1867, having a valid license of driving heavy vehicle. The deceased Mange Singh at the time of accident was 44 years of age leaving behind six dependants. He was a registered owner of Tata 407 vehicle No. RJ 22-GA-1867, having a valid license of driving heavy vehicle. Further in evidence AW/1 Nenu Devi has specifically stated that the Registration certification of vehicle Tata 407 (Ex.18) is also in the name of Mange Singh which has been produced on record, therefore, the Insurance company is not justified in seeking reduction in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and no interference is called for in the award passed by the tribunal. 6. Learned counsel or the respondents relied upon decision of Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rajesh & Ors v. Rajbir Singh & ors reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 and ‘Munna lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors’ reported in 2015 (1) R.A.R 157. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. The Insurance company has filed the present appeal mainly on the quantum of the compensation. The claimants have come up with a case that deceased Mange Singh was registered owner of the vehicle Tata 407 No. RJ-22 GA 1867. AW/1 Smt. Nenu Devi has stated that the deceased Mange Singh was also having valid driving license to drive heavy vehicle which has been placed on record. Thus, as far as the employment and work of the deceased Mange Singh is concerned, the Registration certificate Ex.18 reveals that deceased was registered owner of the Truck and he was having valid driving license. The Tribunal has rightly held that Late Mange Singh used to earn livelihood by plying the Truck No. RJ-22 GA 1867. 9. Learned tribunal while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalla Devi & Ors v. Bhagwandas Chouhan M.A.C.D. 2014 (SC) 459 so also the provisions of Minimum wages published under the Statute, has computed the income of deceased to be Rs. 9000/-. In the opinion of this Court, the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal with regard to income is without any infirmity and does not require any interference. The impugned judgment and award is based on proper appreciation of evidence and material on record. 10. In view of above, no interference is called for in this appeal. 9000/-. In the opinion of this Court, the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal with regard to income is without any infirmity and does not require any interference. The impugned judgment and award is based on proper appreciation of evidence and material on record. 10. In view of above, no interference is called for in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed.