Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2174 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmi

2019-08-13

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2019
ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company as against the award passed by the learned MACT dated 04.07.2013 holding the Vehicle Maruti Van bearing No. RJ36UA 0384 involved in the accident with motor cycle No. RJ 6SM 790. In the said accident Gajmal expired. The Insurance Company submits that the Maruti Van cannot be said to be involved in the said accident and there appears to be a collusion between the owner and the claimants because in the FIR which was lodged, it was stated that there was an unknown vehicle which had caused the accident. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that merely because an admission of owner in a notice sent to him under Section 133 and 134 of MV Act, it cannot be presumed that the vehicle was involved. Further learned counsel submits that the claimant was also required to prove the negligence on part of the offending vehicle for getting a claim of award and as the claimant could not prove that firstly the vehicle was involved and secondly that vehicle, if involved, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, so as to cause accident, resulting in death of the deceased. The learned MACT could not have passed the award granting compensation to the claim. Learned counsel submits that apart from the claimant Laxmi, no one else was examined before the MACT and Laxmi in her cross-examination states that she had not seen the accident having occurred. The other persons who was lying the motor cycle namely Kalu was not produced in evidence, who had lodged the FIR. Thus, there is a doubt with regard to the involvement of the vehicle in the concerned accident. It is further submitted that Kalu had appeared in the case registered against the driver of Maruti Van by the police, and before the concerned court, he has feigned ignorance with regard to the number of vehicle and make of the vehicle and who was driving. Thus, it is submitted that there is doubt of the vehicle being involved in the concerned accident. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the owner has filed the reply to the claim petition and has admitted of the vehicle being involved in the accident. Thus, it is submitted that there is doubt of the vehicle being involved in the concerned accident. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the owner has filed the reply to the claim petition and has admitted of the vehicle being involved in the accident. In reply to the notice under Section 134 of MV Act, he has admitted of the vehicle being involved in the accident and the investigation conducted by the concerned investigating authority also found the vehicle to be involved in the accident and lodged the charge-sheet against the driver, for which, the trial was conducted against the concerned driver of the Maruti Van. Thus, there is a sufficient evidence of involvement of the Maruti Van. Learned counsel has also relied on AIR 2011 SC 671 in Saroj & Ors. Vs. Het Lal & Ors. to submit that admission in pleading of his involvement of vehicle by the owner would be sufficient for the purpose of examining the liability. 4. I have considered the submissions and find that owner in his reply to the claim petition, has admitted of vehicle being involved. Laxmi, who appeared in the witness box before the MACT, states that she had not seen the accident but she came to know that the Maruti Van was involved in the accident after two days of the date of occurrence. She also states in her cross-examination that the vehicle Maruti Van was coming from the other side (Bhilwara) while her husband was going from Kevliyawas to Sareri. In the charge-sheet preferred by the police authority, the case was registered against the driver of the Maruti Van under Section 279 and 304A and the owner got the vehicle released. The owner Mohammed Farid has filed reply but did not appear for evidence, so far as Insurance Company is concerned while in reply they have taken a stand that the Maruti Van was not involved in the accident and the accident was not caused on account of any rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. In view of the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 279 and 304A, this court finds that the learned MACT has rightly held that the vehicle was being driven rash and negligent manner by its driver resulting which the accident had happened. In view of the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 279 and 304A, this court finds that the learned MACT has rightly held that the vehicle was being driven rash and negligent manner by its driver resulting which the accident had happened. It is also noticed that there is a Motor Vehicle inspector's report of the vehicle namely Maruti Van and there is a mark on the vehicle of initial accident. Thus, in this view, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is found to be without merit. Moreover, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saroj & Anr. (supra) it was held as under:- "12. On considering the rival arguments, it must be said that the petition could not have been dismissed in totality. Presuming it to be a hit and run case, the appellants were entitled to at least Rs. 25,000/- as per the provisions of Section 161 (3) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, both the Courts below have obviously failed to note this provision. But that is not the end of the matter. In our opinion, both the Courts below have completely erred in giving the finding that it was a hit and run case and that the concerned vehicle belonging to respondent No. 2 was not involved in the accident. Insofar as that finding is concerned, it was an admitted position in the pleadings of respondent No. 2 that firstly, the Tata 207 vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38-L/6592 was involved in an accident with the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-26-P/9413 which took place on 16.9.2005 at 3.30 p.m. and secondly, the said vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1. This admission in the pleadings which we have quoted in the order was itself sufficient to hold that the concerned vehicle belonging to respondent No. 2 was involved in the accident. This admission was never traversed by respondent No. 2 and, thus, there was no occasion to hold that the said vehicle was not involved and that it was a hit and run case. It is surprising that not only the Tribunal but the High Court also should have ignored the vital admission on the part of respondent No. 2. It was nobody's case that this admission of respondent No. 2 was in collusion between respondent No. 2 and appellants. It is surprising that not only the Tribunal but the High Court also should have ignored the vital admission on the part of respondent No. 2. It was nobody's case that this admission of respondent No. 2 was in collusion between respondent No. 2 and appellants. Once this position is clear, there is no occasion for holding that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and on that count exonerating the three respondents. 13. In strict sense, this admission may not be binding vis-à-vis respondent No. 1, the driver, who continued to take a stand that vehicle being driven by him was not involved in the accident. This defence of respondent No. 1 is understandable as admittedly he is facing the prosecution for causing the accident and the death thereby of deceased Joginder Singh on 16.9.2005 at 3.30 p.m." 5. Thus, following the aforesaid view of the Apex Court, this Court finds that the contention being without any basis, the appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly dismissed. The compensation as awarded by the court below is confirmed, the same is directed to be released to the claimant within a period of three months from today. All pending applications stand disposed of.