Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1776 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanchu Ram Jat

2023-09-15

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.:— The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973 against the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 434/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1-claimant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimant’) and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,56,846/- in favour of the claimant. 2. The claimant submitted a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 24,56,000/-. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant and passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The amount of award passed by the learned Tribunal is also on a higher side. There is no plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. The claimant has failed to discharge his burden to prove the question of negligence/involvement and there is no independent eye-witness. Hence, in the absence of testimony of any independent eyewitness, it cannot be said that the burden has been discharged by the claimant. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that mere filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of the insured vehicle is not sufficient to hold that the involvement of the vehicle is proved and it appears that the accident took place due to fall of pipe and later on in collusion with the owner and driver of the alleged offending motorcycle the FIR has been lodged to get the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal may kindly be quashed and set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 8. It transpires from the perusal of the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal that the claimant-respondent-Nanchuram suffered 35% permanent disability in the accident and he was hospitalized for about 30 days for his treatment. For 35% permanent disability the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 8. It transpires from the perusal of the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal that the claimant-respondent-Nanchuram suffered 35% permanent disability in the accident and he was hospitalized for about 30 days for his treatment. For 35% permanent disability the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 87,500/-; Rs. 5000/- for grievous injury; Rs. 15,000/- for 30 days’ hospitalized, Rs. 10,000/- for two operations, Rs. 4346/- for actual medical bills and Rs. 35,000/- for pain and suffering and thus, total Rs. 1,56,846/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant, which cannot be said to be on higher side looking to the age of the claimant and nature of injuries and permanent disability, which has also been proved by Ex.35. Hence, on the question of quantum also there is no force in the appeal. 9. It was contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the FIR was lodged with a delay of 12 days and the involvement of the vehicle has been made falsely. However, the learned Tribunal has rightly negated the defence on the count that the claimant who was eye-witness has confirmed the involvement of the vehicle in the witness box and charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the insured vehicle i.e. motorcycle No. RJ-14-41M- 0861. The claimant suffered bone injury in the spine and was hospitalized for about 30 days and was operated twice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR has been lodged falsely and belatedly. The Insurance Company has examined its investigator -Mr. G. L Yadav, as NAW-1, who was not the eyewitness and hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding Issue Nos. 1 to 3 is just and proper. 10. No interference is thus warranted and the present appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly. 11. Stay application too stands dismissed.