Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1805 (RAJ)

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Mewa Kanwar

2021-09-22

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2021
ORDER 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment & award dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra in M.A.C. Case No. 78/2012 whereby, the learned Judge, MACT Cases has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 16,53,800/- to the claimant respondents. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra, stating therein that on 09.05.2012, when the deceased Jagdish Singh was going on his Martui Omni Van No. GJ-15-AD-2722 from Balotra towards Sindhri, at that time one Turbo Truck bearing Registration No. HR-61-A-9907 being driven rash and negligently by the driver hit the vehicle of deceased and consequently due to grievous injuries, he died. 3. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed a judgment and award partly allowing claim petition awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.16,53,800/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till date of realization. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company while challenging the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No. 1 has vehemently submitted that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle as the Maruti Van was going on the wrong side or at the most it was a case of contributory negligence and liability of compensation should have been fastened on the Insurance company as well as deceased. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal has also committed error in assessing the income of deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month despite the fact that there was no evidence on record on the basis of which the income of the deceased could be taken to be Rs.6,000/- per month. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding 50% of income by way of future prospects as the deceased was stated to be a self employed person and he could not have any permanent income to be awarded any compensation towards future prospects. Thus, the tribunal has awarded excessive compensation in an unreasonable manner. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding 50% of income by way of future prospects as the deceased was stated to be a self employed person and he could not have any permanent income to be awarded any compensation towards future prospects. Thus, the tribunal has awarded excessive compensation in an unreasonable manner. Further the rate of interest needs to be fixed in consonance with the prevailing rate of Reserve Bank of India and therefore, awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum is also excessive. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant-Insurance Company may be allowed and the judgment and award impugned qua them may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents/cross-objector opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submitted that the Tribunal rightly recorded the findings on all the issues and fastened the liability of paying compensation on the insurance company. It is argued that the appellant insurance company in order to escape from the liability of payment of compensation has created a false story of negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the vehicle. It is further argued that since there was no fundamental breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation to the claimants in the present case. In fact, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on the lower side while taking the income of deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month whereas the deceased was 30 years old and was earning a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum and therefore, amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced by assessing the income of deceased to be Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has also erred in not awarding suitable compensation for future prospects of the deceased also. 6. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment/award dated 22.12.2014 as also the material available on record.* 7. 1,50,000/- per annum. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has also erred in not awarding suitable compensation for future prospects of the deceased also. 6. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment/award dated 22.12.2014 as also the material available on record.* 7. For appreciation of the arguments on issue No. 1, a close scrutiny of the evidence of witness AW/2 Viram Singh shows that the vehicle driven by the deceased on correct side and the truck driver was driving the vehicle rash and negligently and came on the wrong side whereas, no evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant Insurance company to prove that the deceased was negligent or was at fault. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the documents and after appreciation of the evidence, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and it can safely be presumed that since the Truck was being driven on the wrong side, thus, there is no negligence of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1, therefore, is affirmed. Further, the amount of Rs. 6,000/- taken into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 2 also does not suffer from infirmity as the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. However, the claimants have stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was 28 years of age and he was self employed and doing business of clothes. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 with regard to income and future prospects is also just and proper and same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 8. I view of the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 22.12.2014 is maintained and the same is directed to be paid by the insurance company to the claimants. 9. As far as the cross-objection preferred by claimants is concerned, the amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be a 'just compensation? in the present case and there is no scope for enhancing the same. Therefore, the cross-objection filed by the claimants is dismissed being bereft of merit.