Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 788 (RAJ)

Jai Singh v. Prem Singh

2016-05-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. Since these aforesaid appeals arise out of om judgment and award passed by MACT, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts giving rise these appeals are that Smt. Karma, Smt. Ratni Smt. Choti, Gopira, Smt. Puri, Smt. Sajni, Chanta and Channa, Sajna @ Sajni Lali, Smt. Apu, Kumari Kani were going in trolley attached with tractor bearing No. RJ01-R-1927 with bags of Macca and Bazra from Srinagar to Ajmer, Jaisingh tractor driver was driving tractor rashly and negligently overturned, due to that Smt. Apu and Kumari Kani died and others sustained grievous injuries. 3. An F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation challan was submitted against Jai Singh tractor driver. Injured as well as legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Apu and Kumari Kani and injured filed claim petitions separately for compensation under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 4. The non-claimant No. 3 Insurance Company, being insurer of the tractor filed reply, stating therein that tractor was insured for the agriculture purpose while it was being used for commercial purposes by breaching condition of policy. It was further stated in the reply that no premium was charged for covering the risk of persons travelling in tractor attached with trolley. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the relevant parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as 3 issues. The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and against non-claimants on the basis of statement of eye-witness as well as documentary evidence such as F.I.R., Post Mortem Report, Injury Report, Challan which was filed against the tractor driver. The issue No. 2 relates to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal while deciding this issue awarded compensation to the claimants and against awarded compensation it the claimants and against non-claimants vide judgment dated 24.7.2002. The learned Tribunal held that the non-claimants are liable for compensation jointly and severally. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the Hon'ble High Court had quashed and set aside the order dated 24.7.2002 on the Issue No.2 and remanded the matter to decide this issue afresh in the light of judgment toil cited by relevant parties. The learned Tribunal held that the non-claimants are liable for compensation jointly and severally. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the Hon'ble High Court had quashed and set aside the order dated 24.7.2002 on the Issue No.2 and remanded the matter to decide this issue afresh in the light of judgment toil cited by relevant parties. It is further contended that the Issue No. 2 relates to quantum of compensation therefore the compensation amount may be enhance: or may be reduced but company cannot be exonerated by holding that condition has been breached by driver/owner of the tractor and the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding this issue. The learned Tribunal has made mistake in holding that no premium was charge covering the risk of persons travelling in trolley attached with tractor therefore Insurance Company is not liable for compensation. He has further contended that company has failed to establish that premium was not charged for covering the risk or persons sittings the trolley. Evidence available on record shows that the Insurance Company has charged covering the risk of the person sitting in the trolley. Hence judgment and award dated 27.7.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be quashed an; set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the Tribunal has decided the matter twice and each and every aspect of the matter has been considered by the Tribunal afresh. He further contended that passengers who were travelling in the trolley which is a breach of policy, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the award amount. Therefore impugned award deserves to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal which reads as under:- HINDI MATTER 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal as quoted herein above, the learned Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. I am in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal as quoted herein above, the learned Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, and has 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 with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, and thus the appeals having no force, are hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Appeals dismissed.