Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2662 (RAJ)

Shanti Lal S/o Ram Lal Sharma v. Gurucharan Singh S/o Shivram Gurjar

2017-12-01

P.K LOHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : P.K LOHRA, J. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Appellant-claimant, by the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’), has questioned the quantum of compensation determined and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’) by its judgment and award dated 16th of August 2017. By the judgment and award dated 16th of August 2017, learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim of appellant-claimant in respect of damage to his vehicle Bolero Jeep No. RJ-09-UA-0257, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the total claim amount of Rs. 4,63,753/-. 2. The facts in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that appellant-claimant submitted a claim petition before learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, inter-alia, on the ground that Vehicle Bolero Jeep No. RJ-09-UA-0257 owned by him met with an accident on 19th of October 2006 on Pratapnagar-Chittorgarh road when it collided with Container No. HR-63-3996. As per version of the appellant, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Container by its driver and as a consequence of accident Bolero Jeep of the appellant completely damaged. In the claim petition, besides driver of the Container and its owner, insurers of both the vehicles were arrayed as non-applicants. 3. The claim petition was contested by both the insurance companies respondent No. 3 & 4 respectively. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2 despite service and in that background learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. The third respondent, insurer of Container, submitted its reply and denied all the allegations. It is pleaded by the insurer that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero Jeep by its driver and therefore no negligence can be attributed to the driver of Container. It is also averred in the return that cost of Bolero vehicle is wrongly mentioned to the tune of Rs. 5,04,700/- in the claim petition whereas in fact it was insured with the fourth respondent showing its cost to the tune of Rs. 3,53,753/- only as per report of the Surveyor. It is also submitted in the reply that after accident appellant submitted a complaint against insurer of the vehicle, i.e fourth respondent, before District Consumer Forum but the same was rejected on 5th of March 2008. 3,53,753/- only as per report of the Surveyor. It is also submitted in the reply that after accident appellant submitted a complaint against insurer of the vehicle, i.e fourth respondent, before District Consumer Forum but the same was rejected on 5th of March 2008. Asserting with emphasis that appellant has not availed remedy against rejection of his claim by the District Consumer Forum, it is averred in the reply that it has rendered his entire claim bereft of any merit. An endeavour was also made by third respondent to contest the claim on all the grounds by taking shelter of Section 170 of the Act. 4. The fourth respondent also contested the claim wherein factum of vehicle being insured with the company is admitted. It is also averred in the reply that appellant never raised any demand for damages from the insurance company and at his behest a complaint was submitted before the District Consumer Forum which was rejected. The fourth respondent has also pleaded that the claim petition is barred by res-judicata. 5. On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned Tribunal framed eight issues for determination. The appellant in support of his claim appeared himself in the witness box and examined one more witness. Besides ocular evidence on behalf of appellant 20 documents were submitted and exhibited. 6. E. Con-verso, on behalf of insurance company two witnesses were examined and insurance company as well as decision of the District Consumer Forum, Chittorgarh was also produced and exhibited. 7. The learned Tribunal, after hearing arguments, decided Issue No. 1 regarding rash and negligent driving in favour of appellant and against the respondent insurance company. Issue No. 3 & 4, which were framed as per the objections of the insurer were also decided against them for non-production of requisite evidence. Likewise, Issue No. 5 & 6, which were framed on the basis of objection raised by third respondent insurance company were also decided against it in absence of any cogent evidence. Issue No. 7 & 8 which were settled on the strength of objections of fourth respondent insurer were also decided against it. While switching on to crucial issues, i.e Issue No. 2 & 9, learned trial Court, on overall analysis of evidence and facts of the case and factum of valuation of Bolero Jeep at the time of insurance to the tune of Rs. While switching on to crucial issues, i.e Issue No. 2 & 9, learned trial Court, on overall analysis of evidence and facts of the case and factum of valuation of Bolero Jeep at the time of insurance to the tune of Rs. 3,53,753/- assessed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- payable to the appellant and accordingly it partly allowed claim of the appellant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and award. 9. Upon perusal of impugned judgment and award, it is crystal clear that learned trial Court after minutely analyzing the evidence adduced by parties, decided all the issues including the vital issue of rash and negligent driving. While examining quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence threadbare for arriving at the conclusion that for the damage caused to Bolero Jeep of appellant he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @7.5% from the date of filing claim petition. It is also noteworthy that learned Tribunal, while assessing the quantum of compensation has taken note of insured value of the vehicle and then fastened joint and several liability on respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned Tribunal has further issued directions against respondent No. 3 to pay the amount of compensation within a period of three months. 10. In my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has assessed just and reasonable compensation, which cannot be said to be inadequate calling for any enhancement in the factual backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, I am not impressed by the submissions of learned counsel that upon consideration of the matter in entirely learned Tribunal has committed manifest error or illegality in assessing the quantum of compensation. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award warranting interference by this Court. 11. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.