Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 138 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Asha Ram

2021-01-20

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 40/2014 1. The matter comes up on an application for restoration of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 721/2012 which was dismissed vide Order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in compliance of the peremptory Order dated 24.08.2012 passed by this Court. 2. The restoration application is reported to be time barred by 272 days. 3. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 4. No reply to the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application as well as restoration application has been filed by the respondents. 5. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay of 272 days in filing the restoration application is condoned. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the restoration application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the bona fide error, the appellant could not file the requisites and therefore, in view of the peremptory order, the appeal was dismissed. 8. For the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, the same is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 722/2012, 2021/2015 & 721/2012 9. With the consent of the parties, the appeals are heard on merits today itself. 10. The above mentioned three appeals arise out of the same accident as well as common award passed by the Tribunal on 19.12.2011, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 11. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2021/2015 has been preferred by the legal representatives of Asha Ram (During the pendency of the present appeal Asha Ram has died). For enhancement of the amount awarded in their favour vide judgment and award dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh, District Churu in Civil Misc. Case No. 25/8 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 54,417/- in favour of the injured Asha Ram. Whereas, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 722/2012 & 721/2012 have been preferred by the National Insurance Company challenging the Judgment & Award dated 19.12.2011. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has only limited his arguments to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.4. Whereas, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 722/2012 & 721/2012 have been preferred by the National Insurance Company challenging the Judgment & Award dated 19.12.2011. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has only limited his arguments to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.4. Learned counsel submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.4 are perverse and incorrect. Learned counsel further contended that since the driver of the Bus was not holding a proper driving license to drive the transport heavy vehicle, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation in the accident which took place on 29.11.2005. He further submits that the Tribunal committed an error while recording the findings that the driver of the Bus, namely, Ram Prasad was having all the requisite qualifications/eligibility for driving the Bus is on the face of it, incorrect. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability of paying the compensation to the claimants-respondents in this case. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that there is no error on the findings of Issue No. 4 as the Tribunal has dealt with the issue of validity of the license of Ram Prasad in detail, and has conclusively held that the driver of the bus, Ram Prasad, was holding the requisite driving license to drive the bus and, therefore, the Insurance Company was under an obligation to pay the compensation. He, therefore, submits that the findings on Issue No. 4 are not required to be interfered with by this Court. 15. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents in the appeal filed for enhancement has also prayed that since the injured Asha Ram suffered two fractures in the present accident and one simple injury, for which he was admitted in the Hospital from 30.11.2005 to 05.01.2006 and incurred a huge expenditure for getting the treatment but despite that he was awarded a paltry sum of Rs. 54,417/-. He, therefore, submits that the amount awarded is on a much lower side and is required to be suitably enhanced. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as award dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Tribunal. 17. 54,417/-. He, therefore, submits that the amount awarded is on a much lower side and is required to be suitably enhanced. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as award dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Tribunal. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that driver of the Bus-Ram Prasad was not holding the requisite license at the time of accident, is not correct and therefore, the contention is devoid of any force. For brevity, the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.4 are reproduced herein :- 18. A close reading of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.4 reveals that driver of the Bus-Ram Prasad was issued a driving license which was produced before the Tribunal as N.A.6. The license issued was for driving the transport vehicle under the signature of the competent authority of the Transport Department. The license to drive the transport vehicle was valid on the date of accident. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal based on evidence, the driver of the bus-Ram Prasad was fully competent and eligible to drive the Bus, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.4. 19. Therefore, in view of the discussions made above, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company being S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 722/2012 & 721/2012 are bereft of merit and the same are rejected. 20. As far as the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded on account of the injuries suffered by Asha Ram is concerned, it is observed that Asha Ram suffered two fractures which are grievous in nature and one simple injury. As per the discharge certificate placed on record, the injuries sustained by Asha Ram gets corroborated. In the discharge certificate, the period of hospitalization is also mentioned. In view of the injuries suffered and hospitalization period besides the medical bills submitted, an amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.54,417/-(Rupees: Fifty Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventeen Only) appears to be on the lower side. This Court feels that the same is not a just compensation and therefore, the same should be suitably enhanced. 21. This Court feels that the same is not a just compensation and therefore, the same should be suitably enhanced. 21. In the considered opinion of this Court, taking into consideration the guidelines of RALSA and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the like nature of cases lump-sum amount of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees: Sixty Thousand Only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal is awarded to meet the ends of justice. 22. The counsel for the Insurance Company has gracefully submitted that enhancement of amount of Rs. 60,000/- in the present case will be a 'just compensation'. 23. Thus, it is ordered that the Insurance Company shall pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees : Sixty Thousand Only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal to the LR's of Asha Ram within a period of six weeks from today. If the said amount of Rs. 60,000/- is not paid within the stipulated time, it shall carry the interest @ 7% p.a. till the same is paid to the claimants. 24. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2021/2015 stands disposed of in the terms above.