Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1228 (RAJ)

SBI General Insurance Company Limited v. Uday Lal

2017-05-12

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. 1. Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 21.02.2017 passed by learned Judge, MACT Cases, Udaipur in MACT Case No. 87/2016 whereby, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and ordered the non-claimant Insurer to pay the amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,39,800/- to the claimants along with interest @ 8.5% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition contending that on 24.08.2014, claimants Uday lal and Ram lal were going on motorcycle in the evening at around 4 :00 PM, at that time the respondent non-claimant No. 1 Driver driving the Truck No. RJ-27-GB 3066 rash and negligently hit the motorcycle resulting in several simple and grievous injuries to the claimants. An FIR was registered at police station and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the non-claimant driver. 3. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions and evidence on record partly allowed the claimant petition and directed the appellant insurer and non-claimants to pay the compensation amount in the sum of Rs. 3,39,800/- along with interest @ 8.5%. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant in order to claim compensation from insurance company lodged FIR in collusion with the police and truck owner after a delay of 100 days from the date of accident whereas, the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle and same is evident from the contradictory statement of the claimant. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding the income of the claimant to the tune of Rs. 72,000/- per annum which is unjust unfair and erroneous in the absence of sufficient oral and documentary evidence and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the minimum wage as the income of the claimant. It is thus prayed that the findings of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment/award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have perused the impugned judgment/award dated 21.02.2017 passed by the learned Judge MACT No. 1 Udaipur as also material available on record. 6. It is thus prayed that the findings of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment/award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have perused the impugned judgment/award dated 21.02.2017 passed by the learned Judge MACT No. 1 Udaipur as also material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that claimant Uday lal sustained injuries due to the accident while he was going on his motorcycle on 24.08.2014 and a First Information report in this regard was lodged by mother of the claimant on 10.11.2014. As per discharge tickets, the claimant remained hospitalised for a long period and was referred to higher centre, therefore, the delay in filing the FIR itself cannot be considered fatal to the case of the claimant. The claimant Udaylal and witness Ram Lal in their statements have stated that the accident occurred on 24.08.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No. RJ 27/GB 3066 and it is not in dispute that after investigation vide Ex.1 charge-sheet under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to Issue No. 1 cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. As far as the Issue No. 3 is concerned, the claimant had claimed that he was 22 years of age and was earning a sum of Rs. 13,000/- per month out of craftsmanship and agricultural work. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the medical/injury report while taking the age of the claimant to be 28 years, has determined the monthly income @ Rs. 6000/- per month. Looking to the nature of pleadings and Ex.20 disable certificate the amount of compensation cannot be side on higher side. The learned tribunal passed a just and reasonable compensation. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Judge MACT No. 1 Udaipur. The civil misc. appeal is without any force and is hereby dismissed.