Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1938 (RAJ)

Royal Sundaram v. Naurati Devi

2021-10-05

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant ? Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.35/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal after framing of the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties awarded a sum of Rs.39,16,730/- in favour of the claimants on account of death of one Champa lal Bhargava in an accident which occurred on 28.10.2012. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the award was passed on the basis of insurance cover note which was procured on the basis of forged insurance policy earlier issued by the Insurance Company. Learned counsel, therefore submits that appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award of compensation in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that an amount of Rs.80,000/- was awarded towards general damages whereas as per the judgment of Hon?ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157, the claimants are entitled for Rs.70,000/- only towards general damages. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents submits that the point raised by the counsel for the appellant with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident was not covered by the insurance policy, on the face of it, is not tenable as no ground with that respect or any documentary evidence was placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is not required to be interfered with. 4. Learned counsel further submits that amount of Rs.80,000/-was awarded by the Tribunal towards general damages which is marginally high to the amount of Rs.70,000/- as per the judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the impugned award and the relevant record of the case. 6. The finding of the Tribunal on issue no.2 specifically shows that the ground with respect to the production of insurance cover note of the forged insurance policy was not raised before the Tribunal. The same was also not stated in their objections submitted before the Tribunal in reply to the claim petition. 6. The finding of the Tribunal on issue no.2 specifically shows that the ground with respect to the production of insurance cover note of the forged insurance policy was not raised before the Tribunal. The same was also not stated in their objections submitted before the Tribunal in reply to the claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to consider whether the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant-company or not. In view of the insurance cover note issued by the appellant-Insurance Company, there was no reason for the Tribunal to disbelieve the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable and the same is rejected. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is upheld. 7. An amount of Rs.80,000/- was awarded towards general damages which is marginally high as per the judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Praney Sethi(supra), therefore, same is reduced by Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the total amount of Rs.10,000/- is reduced from the amount awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 25.11.2019. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 25.11.2019 is modified to the above extent.