Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1528 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi Kanwar

2021-08-17

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is being heard and decided finally at this stage itself. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.24/2017 (NCV No.24/2017), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,95,920/- as compensation with an interest @ 6% p.a. 3. The Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence brought on record decided the claim petition. A claim petition was filed on account of death of one Shri Hari Singh in the accident which occurred on 21.04.2016. In the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2 are erroneous. He submits that at the time of the accident, permit for plying the bus was not in currency and the bus was being plied dehors the permit. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to compensate the respondents- claimants in the present case. It is also contended that driver of the bus was not holding a requisite license at the time of the accident which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, he prays that the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation to the respondents-claimants. 5. Per contra, Mr. G.S.Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants submits that findings of the tribunal on issue No.2 do not suffer from any infirmity as bus No.RJ-07PA-5244 was being plied on Sikar- Jodhpur Route being engaged on contract with Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'RSRTC')- He submits that as per Exp.9, the vehicle involved in the accident was engaged with RSRTC and therefore, there is no question of requirement of permit in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that in reply to the notice under section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner of the bus disclosed the fact that on the date of the accident, the driver Nop Singh Shekhawat was driving the bus and same was also engaged on contract with RSRTC. Learned counsel further submits that in reply to the notice under section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner of the bus disclosed the fact that on the date of the accident, the driver Nop Singh Shekhawat was driving the bus and same was also engaged on contract with RSRTC. He, therefore, submits that the findings recorded by the tribunal are perfectly just and proper. So far as the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the bus was not possessing a valid and requisite license at the time of the accident is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel that this contention is not fortified from any fact as neither anything was averred by the appellant Insurance Company in reply to the claim petition nor anything came on record in the statement of Ravi Mehta (an employee of appellant) who appeared before the tribunal as NAW1 with regard to the fact that driver of the bus was not having a requisite license. He, therefore, submits that the judgment and award dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this court and the same may be upheld. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar, gone through the judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Tribunal as also perused relevant record of the case. 7. The Tribunal has deliberated on issue No.2 and has come to the conclusion that since the bus was engaged with RSRTC on contract, therefore, there was no requirement of any permit. The findings recorded by the tribunal on issue No.2 are reproduced as under:- 8. Further, the fact that driver of the bus was not having requisite driving license at the time of accident is also not borne out from the record as neither anything has been stated by the appellant Insurance Company in reply to the claim petition nor anything has been stated by its employee Ravi Mehta who appeared before the Tribunal as NAW1, therefore, there is no reason for this court to presume that the driver of the bus was not having a requisite license at the time of the accident. 9. In view of the discussions made above, it is held that the judgment passed by Judge, Motor accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur in MAC Case No.24/2017 does not suffer any infirmity and the same is affirmed. 9. In view of the discussions made above, it is held that the judgment passed by Judge, Motor accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur in MAC Case No.24/2017 does not suffer any infirmity and the same is affirmed. The appeal filed by the insurance company lacks merit and the same is dismissed.