Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 234 (RAJ)

N. I. A. Co. Ltd. v. Sushila

2025-02-06

NUPUR BHATI

body2025
Order : 1. The present Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant – Insurance Company against the order dated 13.02.2012 passed by learned MACT, Bikaner in Case No.151/2006 titled as Sushil Vs. Ganga Vishan, whereby, the learned MACT while partly allowing the claim of the claimants has awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,200/-. By way of filing present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company is seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 13.02.2012. 2. Brief facts giving rise to instant appeal are that the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 filed a claim petition on 28.02.2006 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that on 04.01.2006, the husband of respondent No. 1, Smt. Sushila, and the father of minor claimants No. 2 and 3, namely Tarachand (aged 2 years) and Monika (aged 4 years), respectively, was traveling as a supervisor and cleaner in truck No. RJ-07-G- 7209 from Jodhpur to Bikaner. Around 3:00 PM, when the truck was on National Highway No. 65, between Bhagrod and Ahmadpura, respondent No. 4, Ganga Bishan, drove the truck negligently and carelessly, moving it to the wrong side of the road, where it collided with an oncoming truck No. RJ-07-G-3331. As a result, Pannaram sustained severe injuries, leading to his death. 3. Through the said claim petition, the petitioners have claimed Rs. 16,99,200/- along with interest as compensation from appellant and respondents No.4 and 5. 4. In response, respondent No.4 & 5 filed their respective replies and denied the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition. 5. The appellant – Insurance Company, in its reply, claimed that the claim petition was baseless and fabricated. It was further stated that at the time of the accident, Gangabishan was not driving the vehicle; rather, it was the deceased himself who was driving the truck. The appellant also alleged that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, which was within the knowledge of the insured. The police, based on the Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, had incorrectly recorded the driver’s name as Gangabishan, leading to an erroneous charge sheet against him. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the driver’s side of truck No. RJ-07-G-7209 had sustained damage due to the impact with truck No. RJ-07-G-3331, whereas the cleaner’s side remained unaffected. The police, based on the Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, had incorrectly recorded the driver’s name as Gangabishan, leading to an erroneous charge sheet against him. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the driver’s side of truck No. RJ-07-G-7209 had sustained damage due to the impact with truck No. RJ-07-G-3331, whereas the cleaner’s side remained unaffected. A spot survey was conducted, and photographs of the damaged truck confirmed that only the driver’s side was damaged, implying that the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was the one who died. The First Information Report (FIR) also recorded that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle. 6. Regarding the damage claim for the truck, multiple notices were issued asking for the driving license of the deceased Pannaram alias Pannalal, but no such license was provided. It was also acknowledged that the deceased and respondent No. 5 were father and son. The respondent invoked Sections 147, 149, and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, denying liability and asserting that the insurance company was not responsible for compensation. 7. After considering the evidence on record, including medical reports, the learned Tribunal has framed four issues and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,200/- which the appellant claims is arbitrary, perverse and without basis of law. 8. Now, by way of filing instant appeal, the counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of the accident, respondent No. 1, Gangabishan, was not driving the vehicle; rather, it was the deceased himself who was driving the truck (Truck No. RJ-07-G- 7209). The damage pattern of the vehicle, as evident from the spot survey and photographs, clearly indicates that the driver’s side of the truck sustained the impact, strongly suggesting that the deceased was behind the wheel. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving license, and this fact was within the knowledge of the insured. The FIR and investigation report establish that an incorrect response was given under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, leading to a wrongful charge sheet against Gangabishan. Hence, the impugned award is based on erroneous findings and deserves to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant’s contention is baseless and contrary to the evidence on record. Hence, the impugned award is based on erroneous findings and deserves to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant’s contention is baseless and contrary to the evidence on record. The police investigation, FIR, and charge sheet clearly establish that at the time of the accident, Gangabishan was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the collision. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the plea regarding the deceased driving the vehicle is an afterthought and a deliberate attempt to evade liability. The appellant has failed to produce any conclusive evidence, such as witness statements or documentary proof, to support this claim. Moreover, the insurance policy covered the vehicle, and the insurer is bound by its contractual liability. Therefore, the appeal is without merit and deserves to be dismissed with costs. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. Since the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has made a limited submission with respect to the fact that the driver of the truck bearing registration number RJ-07-G-7209 was Pannalal, who died in the said accident, this Court deems it apposite to consider the issue no. 1 and 3, decided by the learned Tribunal in this respect. The relevant part of the order passed by the learned Tribunal while deciding issue no. 1 and 3 is reproduced as under: 12. Upon a careful examination of the record and due consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no infirmity in the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. The plea raised by the appellant-Insurance Company, suggesting that the deceased was himself driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, is devoid of any credible evidence and appears to be a mere afterthought. It is seen that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the statement of the independent witness, Aasuram (AW2), who has deposed that the vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-07-G- 7209 was being driven by Gangabishan while the deceased Pannalal was present in the said vehicle as khalasi and the accident took place due to negligence of both the vehicles. 13. RJ-07-G- 7209 was being driven by Gangabishan while the deceased Pannalal was present in the said vehicle as khalasi and the accident took place due to negligence of both the vehicles. 13. Moreover, it was also observed by the learned Tribunal that it is only in the FIR (Exb.1), lodged by Daulat Ram who is the khalasi of RJ-07-G-3331, where the fact that the truck bearing registration number RJ-07-G-7209 was driven by deceased Pannalal, however, there is no evidence produced to demonstrate that Daulatram knew Pannalal (deceaced) and therefore, was able to identify that the truck was driven by deceased Pannalal. Also, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the documentary evidence inlcuding Vehicle Accident Information (Exb.3), Hetram (NAW 3) is mentioned as owner and Gangabishan is mentioned as Driver; charge-sheet (Exb.2) filed against Gangabishan; and the Motor-Claim Form (Exb. 4), the deceased Pannalal is mentioned as third party and thus, has rightly concluded it not reflected from the record that Pannalal was the driver of the said truck and was driving the said vehicle at the tiume of the accident. The learned Tribunal has also rightly noted that the Surveyor Report (Exb. 5) prepared by Balkishan Modi (NAW 2) is biased inasmuch as he did not take into account the statements of Aasuram, who was an eye-witness, and prepared the report on the basis of facts mentioned in the FIR (Exb.1) which was lodged by Daulatram even when the Surveyor himself neither met with Daulatram, nor took his statements with respect to the said accident. Therefore, in the light of the evidence produced before the learned Tribunal, it has been rightly concluded that the vehicle was driven by Gangaram at the time of accident. 14. Thus, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned award, as no perversity or legal infirmity has been demonstrated that would warrant appellate intervention. 15. Accordingly, the present appeal, being bereft of merit, stands dismissed. The award dated 13.02.2012 passed by the learned MACT, Bikaner, in Claim Case No. 151/2006 is affirmed. No order as to costs.