Dismissed

Lokendra Singh v. Badari Lal and Ans

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2010CMA/659/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's rejection of a compensation claim. The High Court held the appeal devoid of merit because there was no evidence to sustain the claim that the driver's negligence caused the accident.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected and dismissed; the impugned claim is affirmed.

Lokendra Singh Vs Badari Lal and Ans — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2010)

¶1

1 S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.659/99, Lokendra Singh v. Bardrilal & Another.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶3

LOKENDRA SINGH V. BADRILAL & ANOTHER.

¶4

S. B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 659/1996, against the award dated 16.09.1996, passed by Shri O. P. Bishnoi, RHJS, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in MAC Case No. 15/95.

¶5

DATE OF JUDGMENT JULY 13, 2010

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA

¶8

Mr. Dilip Kawadia, for Appellant (s). Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for Respondent (s).

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

On 18.4.94, at 9.15 p.m., on public way, village Bhilura to Banswara, a motor vehicle jeep No. RJJ 1193 going off the road , fell down, resulting in injuries to several, including appellant.

¶11

Appellant instituting claim No.15/95, claimed compensation Rs.2,21,000/-.

¶12

Learned tribunal, rejecting appellant's claim, and the appellant challenges it in the appeal.

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

Per appellant's claim, this jeep was owned by R1 and insured with R2 and he employed as driver, was driving this vehicle for some years. States that in course of this employment, happened accident and he sustained several injuries at rib, both hands and also chin. Also stated that for fracture, operation performed and in right hand, rod inserted, so

¶15

¶16

S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.659/99, Lokendra Singh v. Bardrilal & Another.

¶17

and because of other injuries, he is permanently disabled. Reason of accident assigned is mechanical failure in the vehicle. Stating wages Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.20/- daily allowance as whenever away, requested compensation Rs.1,00,000/- for disablement – Rs.50,000/- for pain and agony – Rs.42,000/- for expenses etc., claimed total Rs.2,02,000/-.

¶18

Insurer, in reply, accepting insurance, stated that in vehicle, passengers as many as 13 were, whereas capacity only of seven and vehicle not authorized to carry passengers. Stated that policy pertained for self use vehicle and premium paid was only for PPD. Asserted that claimant himself driving the vehicle, was driving negligently and the accident occurred exclusively due to his own fault, so not entitled for any compensation.

¶19

Learned presiding officer vide impugned judgment decided seven different compensation claims for three deceased and some injured to whom compensation as described is allowed. Appellant's claim is dismissed, holding accident due to his rash and fast driving. Also held no disablement to appellant..

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant states that only because appellant was driver, cannot be presumed that accident occurred due to his negligence. Argued that no evidence shows his negligence and if any says so, this was only to support their own claim in relation to jeep owner and insurer. Argued that learned presiding officer for non-deposition of medical officer, has not accepted disablement, though so described in injury certificate. Lastly argued that even learned tribunal has arrived at conclusions of actual expenses Rs.5670/- and entitlement of total compensation Rs.10,000/- but still declined to award.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents argues that appellant

¶22

3 S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.659/99, Lokendra Singh v. Bardrilal & Another.

¶23

was driver and awards in favour of other for amount totaling more than Rs.4,00,000/-. States that appellant, being driver, due to his negligence, the incident happened, cannot be entitled to compensation.

¶24

Appellant in claim itself, describes that he was driving the vehicle and the vehicle near bridge went down in a river. Learned judge has arrived at conclusion that incident due to negligence of appellant, this being so and when the appellant did not reply to other five claims, by denying his negligence or in any other way, he cannot be entitled for any compensation. Learned tribunal has concluded only of simple injuries to appellant.

¶25

For the reasons above, the appeal being devoid of merit, is to

¶26

be rejected.

¶27

The appeal is rejected.

¶28

scd

Lokendra Singh v. Badari Lal and Ans

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokendra Singh v. Badari Lal and Ans

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Baya and Anr. Vs Ratanlal and Ors.

Tafajjul Hussain and Ors. Vs Jaya Singhvi and Ors.

Smt. Manju and Ors. Vs Gulab Singh and Ors.

N.I.C.Ltd. Vs Prateek @ Banti and Ors.

Gopal Giri Vs Abdul Mazid and Ors.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Abdul Majid and Ors.