Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2381 (RAJ)

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla Devi

2019-09-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved of the judgment-cum-award dated 22.04.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali, District Pali in MAC No. 46/2006 whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents claimants under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was accepted and they were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,45,000/- owing to the death of bread earner of their family Sonaram in a road accident. 3. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned award as well as the original record. 4. Shri Sonaram met with a road accident on 29.01.2006. He was standing besides the Railway Crossing Jawali when Poonam Singh, the driver of the Car No. MH-04-CD-8144 insured with the appellant Insurance Company came there driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and collided the same with Sonaram @ Sohan who received grave injuries and was admitted to the Bangar Hospital, Pali where he expired during treatment. An FIR No. 2/2006 was registered in relation to the accident at the GRP Police Station, Marwar Junction wherein, after investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against Poonam Singh for the offences under Sections 279, 427 and 304A IPC. 5. The claimants filed the claim application stating therein that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of the accident. He used to earn a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month from doing masonry and agricultural jobs. A total amount of Rs. 78,15,000/- was claimed by way of compensation. 6. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle did not file any reply to the claim application. The Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim application wherein, vague assertions were made. A ground was taken that the driver was not having any valid licence at the time of accident to drive the insured vehicle. 7. The learned Tribunal decided the issue regarding Sonaram having met with accidental death in a road accident in favour of the claimants and rightly so, because this issue was not even contested by any of the non-claimants. 7. The learned Tribunal decided the issue regarding Sonaram having met with accidental death in a road accident in favour of the claimants and rightly so, because this issue was not even contested by any of the non-claimants. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to show that the vehicle was not insured with it or that there was any violation of the policy conditions on part of the insured. It took an objection regarding the driver of the insured vehicle not having a valid licence. The certified copy of the driving licence was proved on record as Ex. P/13 and thus, the issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the Insurance Company. 8. The issue No. 2 regarding the quantum of the claim was also decided in favour of the claimants holding that proper plausible evidence was led by the claimants to prove that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of the incident and that he was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing masonry jobs. 9. Though Shri Anil Bachhawat, Advocate representing the appellant Insurance Company seriously questioned this finding of the learned Tribunal but, on going through the evidence available on record to be specific, the statement of Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Sonaram, it is clear that in her affidavit, she clearly stated that her husband was a skilled mason and used to earn sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing the said job. On going through the cross-examination conducted from Smt. Kamla Devi, it is clear that she has elaborated and explained with conviction that her husband used to earn a sum of Rs. 200/- per day by working as a mason and that he had constructed the houses of Govind Singh Purohit, Surasingh Purohit, Modaram Choudhary and others. No contrary evidence was led by the Insurance Company to controvert this assertion made by Smt. Kamla Devi. Thus, the submission of Shri Bachhawat that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month carries no weight whatsoever and the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is absolutely justified and fortified from the material available on record. 10. The other contention of Shri Bachhawat was that the two married daughters of the deceased have wrongly been held entitled to compensation. 6,000/- per month carries no weight whatsoever and the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is absolutely justified and fortified from the material available on record. 10. The other contention of Shri Bachhawat was that the two married daughters of the deceased have wrongly been held entitled to compensation. However, even if, for a moment, the said submission is accepted, then too, the same would not have any effect on the ultimate computation towards the loss of income to the claimants because also, the learned Tribunal wrongly made 1/3rd deduction from the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Considering the fact that total number of family members, even if the two married daughters are excluded, is five and thus, deduction would have to be made only of 1/4th from the income of Sonaram towards his personal expenses. 11. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali, District Pali in MAC No. 46/2006, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or error whatsoever warranting interference. 12. Thus, the instant appeal fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. 13. Record be returned to the learned Tribunal forthwith.