Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2025 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Geeta

2021-10-25

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2021
ORDER 1. Matter comes up on an application filed by the claimants for vacating the exparte stay order dated 28.11.2018.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court on 28.11.2018 after considering prima facie case in favour of the appellant, passed the stay order and direction was given to deposit the entire award amount and execution of award was to remain stayed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the present appeal at one point of time, was heard finally on 23.07.2020 and judgment was reserved. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court on 26.08.2020, again listed the matter for some clarification and as such the judgment could not be pronounced and matter is pending consideration for final disposal. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that as far as the impugned award is concerned, the same has been passed on a wrong premise as the vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident was not involved at all, as per the statement given by the different witnesses, who were produced by the claimants. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 29.01.2016 and the FIR was lodged on 04.02.2016. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that witness-son of the Saddiq while lodging FIR had reported the incident without giving description/details of the vehicle involved. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that wife of the deceased Smt. Geeta Devi initially was not shown to be accompanying with the deceased, however, later on she has been involved in the present matter. 8. Learned counsel submitted that there are major contradictions in the statement of witnesses i.e. Saddiq, Geeta Devi and Fateh Singh and as such this Court considering the prima facie case in favour of the appellant, has stayed the execution of the award and further the order dated 28.11.2018 may not be vacated. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants-Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta submitted that for the alleged accident an FIR was lodged and Police after investigation has filed challan against the owner and driver of the vehicle and the criminal trial is still pending. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants-Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta submitted that for the alleged accident an FIR was lodged and Police after investigation has filed challan against the owner and driver of the vehicle and the criminal trial is still pending. 10. Learned counsel submitted that as far as the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the involvement of the vehicle are concerned, the evidence which has come on record clearly proved that the notice was given under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the driver of the vehicle and he has specifically admitted that the vehicle was driven by him but negligence was attributed to the deceased. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that in the reply to the claim petition filed by the driver and owner, the vehicle involved in the accident was never disputed by them and it was only the negligence of the deceased which was pleaded by the owner and driver. 12. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 13. This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it proper to modify the order dated 28.11.2018 by permitting the disbursement of 50% of the amount so deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company. The claimant-respondent No.1 wife of the deceased will be disbursed 25% of the amount and respondent No.8-the mother of the deceased will also be disbursed 25% of the amount, in their Savings Bank Account. The rest 50% amount will be kept in the FDR for a period of one year, to be renewed from time to time. 14. The Tribunal will also take an undertaking from the claimants that the amount, so paid to them, will be subject to outcome of the appeal and in case the appeal is decided in favour of the appellant, the claimants would be required to refund back the money. 15. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 16. Record of the case be sent back to the Tribunal concerned and after disbursement of the amount to the claimants, the same be sent back to this Court.