Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 655 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Heena

2020-09-11

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar in Claim Case No. 65/2015 titled Heena and Ors. Versus Buddhan Ram and Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants respondents has been partly allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,40,200/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization has been awarded in favour of the claimants respondents. 2. Facts of the case are that on 26.5.2015, deceased Mukesh Kumar and Narendra, were coming from Dhelas to village Indra Basti on Motor Cycle No. RJ 02 LS 0457. The said motor cycle was being ridden by Narendra. At about 8.00 PM, when they reached near Tehadki Mode, a Motor Cycle HF Deluxe No. RJ 02 KS 0704 being driven rashly and negligently by its rider, came from Behror side and dashed against the motor cycle No.RJ 02 LS 0457, as a result of which Mukesh Kumar sustained injuries. He was taken to the General Hospital, Alwar, from where he was referred to Jaipur. In the way to Jaipur, his condition was deteriorated, therefore, Mukesh Kumar was admitted in Kailash Hospital, Behror, Alwar where he took treatment till 31.5.2015. When Mukesh Kumar was not recovered and health condition of Mukesh Kumar was devastating day by day, he was referred to Jaipur. On 31.5.2015, he was admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where during treatment, he died on 7.6.2015. 3. Thereafter a claim petition petition was filed. Written statement was filed. Issues were framed and evidence was led by both the parties. After hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment and award dated 21.12.2017, as mentioned above. 4. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in holding involvement of the insured motor cycle in the alleged accident. He further submits that the alleged accident took place on 26.5.2015, whereas the FIR was lodged on 20.6.2015. He further submits that there was no eye witness of the incident. These important facts have not been considered by the Tribunal and on these counts, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. He further submits that the alleged accident took place on 26.5.2015, whereas the FIR was lodged on 20.6.2015. He further submits that there was no eye witness of the incident. These important facts have not been considered by the Tribunal and on these counts, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and award and stated that the delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained. He further submits that the accident took place on 26.5.2015, in which Mukesh Kumar sustained injuries. He was taken to General Hospital, Alwar, from where he was referred to Jaipur. In the way to Jaipur, his condition was deteriorated, therefore, Mukesh was admitted in Kailash Hospital, Behror, where he took treatment till 31.5.2015. When Mukesh Kumar was not recovered and his condition was devastating day by day, he was referred to Jaipur. On 31.5.2015, he was admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where during treatment, he died on 7.6.2015. On 7.6.2015, in the evening, Mukesh Kumar was cremated in Indra Basti. Thereafter on 10.6.2015, third day ritual was performed. On completing 12 days rituals, after the death of Mukesh Kumar, FIR was lodged on 20.6.2015. He further submits that after considering each and every aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award, therefore, no interference in the same is required by this Court. 6. Heard. Considered. Although the accident was said to have taken place on 26.5.2015, and FIR (Ex.-2) was lodged on 20.6.2015 but in the written report detailed reasons with regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R. were given. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, the Tribunal found that delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained by the claimants. 7. AW-1 Smt. Heena (wife of deceased Mukesh Kumar) and eye witness AW-2 Narendra categorically testified that the accident took place on 26.5.2015 on account of dashing against deceased's motor cycle by the driver of motor cycle no. RJ 02 KS 0704 and thereby death of Mukesh Kumar took place, but to rebut the same no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the Insurance Company, despite giving ample opportunity in this regard. In this way, claimants' evidence was uncontroverted and unimpeachable. 8. RJ 02 KS 0704 and thereby death of Mukesh Kumar took place, but to rebut the same no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the Insurance Company, despite giving ample opportunity in this regard. In this way, claimants' evidence was uncontroverted and unimpeachable. 8. AW-2 Narendra in his statement categorically stated that at the time of accident, he was accompanying deceased Mukesh Kumar. After the accident, he telephoned and called ambulance 108 and went to hospital with Mukesh Kumar. At the time of lodging FIR by Ramesh Kumar he was also present with him. Therefore, the Tribunal did not incline to accept the plea of the Insurance Co. that there was no eye witness of the alleged accident. 9. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are just and proper and are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in this appeal and the same being bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.