Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 708 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhagyashree

2020-12-01

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. Judgment 1.12.2020 This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagwada, District Dungarpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,25,350/- to the claimants alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application. 2. The application for compensation was filed by minor Bhagyashree, aged 10 years through her guardian for death of his father Prem Ji inter-alia with the submissions that her father, who was aged 40 years and was working at Mumbai in canteen and was involved in agriculture operations, was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, on 20.1.2015, at about 3:00 p.m. suffered accident by rash and negligent driving by respondent Rajendra, resulting in grievous injury to his head, he was given primary treatment at Sagwada Government Hospital and Udaipur, however, applicant's father succumbed to injuries on 24.1.2015, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,50,000/- was claimed. 3. Reply was filed by the driver and owner of the offending motorcycle denying the averments made and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The appellant - Insurance Company also filed its reply and indicated that the accident occurred on 20.1.2015 and though the police station was merely 500 mtr. away from the place of accident, the FIR was lodged after four days on 25.1.2015, which was highly belated and no reason has been indicated for the delay. It was contended that the involvement of the insured vehicle was doubtful and therefore, the application be rejected. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues. 6. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 11 documents were exhibited. 7. On behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company, one witness was examined and 04 documents were exhibited. 8. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor-cycle - Rajendra, due to which, deceased Prem Ji, who was sitting as pillion-rider on another motor-cycle fell down, resulting in, injuries to which he succumbed. 9. 8. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor-cycle - Rajendra, due to which, deceased Prem Ji, who was sitting as pillion-rider on another motor-cycle fell down, resulting in, injuries to which he succumbed. 9. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the sole heir of the deceased was the only applicant, who was 09 years old daughter and her uncle has filed an application as guardian and as such, the delay in lodging FIR cannot be attributed to the claimant. 10. Further as the treatment continued for four days from the date of accident and immediately thereafter, the FIR was lodged, which delay cannot be said to be unexplained. Further submission that the vehicle in question was not registered, it was found that the Insurance Company itself has insured the motor-cycle, which was not registered and, therefore, it cannot escape its liability to pay compensation. 11. While assessing the amount of compensation, the income of the deceased was assessed as unskilled workman with minimum wages and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying multiplier in terms of judgments in the case of Sarin Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., A.I.R. 2017 S.C. 5157 : 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,25,350/-. 12. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal was not justified in accepting the application for compensation. It was submitted that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which clearly puts the very fact of accident from the insured vehicle in doubt and therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set-aside. 13. Further submissions were made that there was no material available on record to award such a huge compensation and therefore, on that count also, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record as well as the record of the Tribunal. 15. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record as well as the record of the Tribunal. 15. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 20.1.2015 and deceased, who had suffered injuries, remained hospitalized till 24.1.2015 when he succumbed to the injuries suffered because of the accident and on the next date i.e. 25.1.2015, the FIR was lodged by one Kodar Ji, who is uncle of the claimant. The said Kodar Ji appeared in the witness-box as PW-1, however, not a single question was put to him qua the reason for delay in lodging the FIR. 16. The Tribunal, based on the submissions made before it, came to the conclusion that as the deceased was admitted in hospital till 24.1.2015, succumbed to the injuries on 24.1.2015 and on the very next day, the FIR was lodged, did not find the delay unusual, so as to accept the plea of the insured vehicle having been implicated by the claimants. The finding by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be perverse, inasmuch as, the appellant-Insurance Company did not put a single question to the witness, who had lodged the FIR regarding the delay. 17. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, for a person aged 40 years, who had his PAN card, which has been marked as exhibit, the assessment of his income based on minimum wages as an unskilled workman cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination. The deduction made, multiplier applied and compensation awarded under other heads are totally in consonance with the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) and, therefore, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is excessive. 18. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the award impugned. The appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.