Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 198 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Navratanmal Soni

2018-01-16

DINESH MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Case No. 1131/2013 titled as "Navratanmal & Ors. v. Ramesh Kumar & Ors.", whereby an award in the sum of Rs. 9,41,760/- has been passed in favour of the claimants. 2. Challenging the award passed by the learned Tribunal below, Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, at the outset, stated that immediately after the death, the owner of the motorcycle and uncle of the deceased (Shyam Lal) went to the Police Station and reported that his motorcycle slipped on the road for which, his nephew, namely Giriraj got severe injuries; and as a result whereof, he (Giriraj) died. Learned counsel Mr. Anil Kaushik also contended that after 10 days of the death of the injured Giriraj, vehicle number of a white Tavera Jeep was given, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, was falsely implicated in this accident. 3. When this Court asked learned counsel Mr. Anil Kaushik appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company to read out the contents of the FIR, he read the same and nothing of the sort, as canvassed by him, was found therein. Thereafter, he went on to say that this version was not recorded in the FIR, but the same was recorded in the Roznamcha (MLC), which was recorded by the Police Station at the Hospital when the deceased/injured was brought there, after the accident. When, learned counsel Mr. Anil Kaushik, read the intimation/noting in the Roznamcha then therein also, no material which indicated that that the motorcycle was slipped, for which, the deceased suffered injuries, was found. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company was asked to place on record, the copies of the FIR and Noting (Roznamcha), which have been taken on record. 4. On the contrary, it does contradict the stand or version of the owner of the motorcycle, that his motorcycle was standing on a road when a white Tavera vehicle, having Registration No. R.J.30-UA-1090 hit the motorcycle resulting in the accident in question. 5. 4. On the contrary, it does contradict the stand or version of the owner of the motorcycle, that his motorcycle was standing on a road when a white Tavera vehicle, having Registration No. R.J.30-UA-1090 hit the motorcycle resulting in the accident in question. 5. A perusal of the FIR filed on 01.11.2012 reveals that Shyam Lal Soni S/o Ram Lal, Uncle of the deceased Giriraj had unequivocally reported that the Tavera Vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 30-UA 1090 which was rashly and negligently driven came in the wrong side and hit Giriraj on 22.10.2012 and resultantly, he suffered injuries and ultimately died on 31.10.2012 after loosing his battle with death. The relevant excerpts of the FIR are extracted below:- egksn; th] fuosnu gS fd fnukad 22-10-2012 dks jk=h dks 9-30 cts eSa o esjk Hkrhtk fxjhjkt vkRet ujruey th lksuh fu0 dks"khFky nksuksa xxakiqj ls eksVj lkbZfdy ij cSBdj dks"khFky tk jgs Fks mYykbZ pkSjkgs ds vkxs fudys fd eSaus is’kkc djus ds fy;s eksVjlkbZfdy dks jksddj is’kkc djus pyk x;k] esjk Hkrhtk eksVjlkbZfdy ds ikl viuh lkbZM esa [kM+k Fkk o eksVjlkbZfdy dh ykbZV py jgh Fkh rHkh lkeus dks"khFky dh vksj ls ,d Vosjk uEcj vkj0ts030@;w,1090 dks mldk pkyd rst xfr] xQyr ,oa ykijokgh iqoZd pykrk gqvk yk;k vkSj eqgt; izkFkhZ ds Hkfrts ds tksj ls Vddj ekj nh ftlls mlds ‘kjhj ij txg cstxg xaHkhj izd'rh dh pksVas vkbZ] ftls eSa izkFkh rRdky bZykt gsrq xxakiqj vLirky yk;k] tgka ls esjs Hkfrts dh gkyr xaHkhj gksus ls mls HkhyokM+k jsQj dj fn;k x;k] HkhyokM+k egkRek xka/kh vLirky ls mls egkjk.kk vLirky mn;iqj jsQj fd;k x;k rFkk ogka esjk Hkfrtk HkrhZ jg dj bZyktjr jgk vkSj vkt fnukad 31-10-2012 dks bZykt ds nksjku mldh e`R;q gks xbZ gSA 6. Whereas the alleged report dated 22.10.2012 is the report given by the victim or his uncle; it is only an entry in the Register maintained by the Police, author or informer whereof is known. That report too does record what has been so confidently stated by the learned counsel. It only records:- fxjhjkt iq= Jh uojru lksuh 1716 23-10-2012 fxjhjkt iq= Jh uojruth lksuh mYykbZ pkSjkgs ij 3%35 ih-,e-] mez 35 o”kZ] fuoklh dks"khyky th eksVj lkbfdy ls dk pkSd ih,l xaxkiqj fxjus ls HkrhZ 7. The above referred entry also does tally with the facts narrated by the learned counsel. It only records:- fxjhjkt iq= Jh uojru lksuh 1716 23-10-2012 fxjhjkt iq= Jh uojruth lksuh mYykbZ pkSjkgs ij 3%35 ih-,e-] mez 35 o”kZ] fuoklh dks"khyky th eksVj lkbfdy ls dk pkSd ih,l xaxkiqj fxjus ls HkrhZ 7. The above referred entry also does tally with the facts narrated by the learned counsel. It has neither been recorded at the assistance of Uncle of the deceased, nor does it record that the Motorcycle slipped. 8. In view of the aforesaid, it is a clear case of an attempt to mislead the Court. Learned counsel has narrated the facts which are in tandem with the record, is an endeavour to project the facts in a manner conducive to his cause. Even the Tribunal below has discussed the aspect of the matter aptly and has given an infallible finding that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the offending vehicle was involved. 9. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. 10. The appellant Insurance Company, in Memo of Appeal has taken a ground that the amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- awarded on other heads is on higher side. However, a look at the Judgment reveals that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,914/- a sum equal to minimum wage payable to an unskilled worker. Looking to the age of the deceased (35 years) engaged in the work of Goldsmith, this amount is too low. As such in overall assessment, the total amount awarded cannot be said to be excessive or unjust. 11. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is thus rejected, however without any order as to cost. 12. As a parting remark, this Court would like to express its displeasure and concern for the attempt made on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company to mislead the Court and the Tribunal below.