Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1102 (RAJ)

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manju Devi

2021-07-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2021
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 7/1/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,60,662/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% from the date of application. 2. An application for compensation was filed by the legal representatives of one Satya Narayan inter alia with the averments that on 8/7/2014 said Satya Narayan was travelling in a pickup along with his goods from Kolayat to Gajner, at around 10.15-10.30 pm a JCB being driven rashly and negligently by Roop Singh struck the said pickup, resulting in grievous and simple injuries to Satya Narayan, to which he succumbed. Based on the above, compensation was claimed for untimely death of Satya Narayan. 3. Reply was filed by the registered owner and person in possession of the vehicle denying the averments made in the application. It was claimed that the accident occurred due to negligent driving by driver of the pickup and it was prayed that in case compensation is to be paid, the same be paid by the Insurance Company. 4. The Insurance Company filed its response and claimed that the driver was not in possession of an effective and valid driving license and on account of violation of policy conditions, it was not liable for making payment of compensation. 5. The Tribunal framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 45 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent Insurance Company, one witness was examined and one document was exhibited. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by Roop Singh-driver of the JCB, which resulted in the accident. After assessing the quantum of compensation based on the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157 , awarded the compensation, as noticed hereinbefore. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent Roop Singh. It was submitted that in the FIR (Ex. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent Roop Singh. It was submitted that in the FIR (Ex. 1) it was indicated that the vehicle was driven by one Surja Ram Meghwal and that the first informant knew the driver from before the accident, however, apparently driver Roop Singh was swapped in place of Surja Ram Meghwal for obvious reasons and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. It was emphasized that the claimants in collusion with the owner of the insured vehicle, replaced the name of actual driver, apparently as the actual driver Surja Ram Meghwal was not in possession of a valid driving license. However, the Tribunal, though noticed all the contentions, only on account of the fact that in response to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner of the vehicle indicated the name of Roop Singh as driver, has discarded the evidence available on record and, therefore, the finding on the issue deserves to be set aside and consequently the appellant Insurance Company deserves to be exonerated. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record along with the statement of witnesses. 9. It is not in dispute that in the FIR (Ex. 1) Ashok Kumar indicated the name of Surja Ram Meghwal as driver of the offending JCB. However, during the course of investigation, apparently based on the response to the notice under Section 133 of the Act, the police after investigation filed challan against Roop Singh, based on which Roop Singh was impleaded as party respondent to the present proceedings. The first informant Ashok Kumar was examined as A.W.-2, who in his cross examination, though admitted the portion of the FIR where name of Surja Ram Meghwal was indicated, however, stated that he had indicated the name of driver based on hearsay. Other than that there is no cross examination on the said aspect. The first informant Ashok Kumar was examined as A.W.-2, who in his cross examination, though admitted the portion of the FIR where name of Surja Ram Meghwal was indicated, however, stated that he had indicated the name of driver based on hearsay. Other than that there is no cross examination on the said aspect. The witness of the Insurance Company, N.A.W.-1-Rajeev Gunjal reiterated the stand of the Insurance Company regarding the driver swapping, however in the cross examination indicated that the company did not make any inquiry from the registered owner/person in possession regarding the driver of the vehicle and he was stating the above aspect based on the record, however, admitted that the police had filed challan against Roop Singh. 10. From the above material which has come on record, apparently the appellant Insurance Company simply relied on the indication made in the FIR, however when the first informant A.W.-2 was examined, except for putting the question to him regarding indication of name in the FIR, which he clearly explained was indicated by him based on hearsay, no further cross examination was made on the said aspect and admittedly no further inquiry was made by the Insurance Company in this regard. Once the first informant himself has appeared in the witness box and explained the indication made in the FIR and as there is no contrary evidence available on record, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue cannot be faulted. 11. In view of the above discussion, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of negligent driving by respondent no. 3 in driving the vehicle and negating the stand of the Insurance Company regarding driving swapping do not call for any interference. 12. No other issue was argued/pressed. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.