Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 600 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Poonam Singh

2022-02-18

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal cum additional District Judge (Fast Track No.1, Beawar), whereby, an amount of Rs.4,51,360/- along with interest @ 7.5% has been awarded to the claimant-respondents on account of the injury and permanent disability suffered by him in an accident, which was occurred on 02.12.2005. 2. The Tribunal after framing the issues evaluating the evidence on the record and hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant-respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the Insurance Company has submitted instant appeal on various grounds. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. In spite of service, none has put in appearance on behalf of the claimant-respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has attacked the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 on the ground that the Tribunal has not evaluated the evidence in correct perspective and therefore, has erred while recording the finding on issue No.1 against the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there was head on collusion between the offending vehicle and the vehicle driven by the claimant. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Hence, the appellant-Company is not liable to make payment of compensation. He further submitted that the claimant was not having any license to ply the vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that the income of the claimant had been assessed on the higher side. Lastly, he argued that when the claimant was examined by the Medical Board on 03.09.2007, the Board was of the opinion that the injuries sustained by the claimant were not properly healing and the claimant was advised to revisit the Medical Board after four weeks. He submitted that the claimant revisited the Hospital within a period of three weeks only and this time there were two members in the Medical Board, who gave their opinion that the claimant has sustained 76.5% permanent disability without considering the injury report of the claimant. 6. I have considered the submissions made at bar and gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as record of the case. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions made at bar and gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as record of the case. 7. For appreciation of the arguments on issue No.1 a close scrutiny of the site plan reveals that the offending vehicle was driven by the respondent No.2-Chena Ram in a wrong side and the vehicle of the claimant was coming from the opposite direction and the accident has occurred at the side marked as 'X' in the site plan. Therefore, at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by the claimant on the right side of the road and the offending vehicle was being driven on the opposite side i.e. in the wrong side of the road. So, it cannot be believed that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 8. So far as the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant that the claimant was not having any license to ply the vehicle. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is having no merit as the claimant has not submitted the claim petition against the Insurance Company of his own vehicle. So far as the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available on record and the same has been rightly assessed and there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal while deciding this issue. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal on issues No.2 and 5 is just and proper and the same is not required to be interfered by this Court. 9. So far as the interest @ 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same appears to be on slightly higher side. Therefore, this Court feels that the same should be reduced from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum. 10. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company stands disposed of with a modification that the award of the Tribunal is maintained, however, the interest awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.7.5% per annum is reduced to Rs.6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 11. The appellant-Insurance Company is granted six weeks' time from today to deposit the balance amount. Upon depositing the balance amount, the amount of compensation be disbursed to the claimant-respondents forthwith. 12. 11. The appellant-Insurance Company is granted six weeks' time from today to deposit the balance amount. Upon depositing the balance amount, the amount of compensation be disbursed to the claimant-respondents forthwith. 12. Record of the Tribunal be send back forthwith.