Dismissed

Aamar Singh and Ors. v. Mst Ramshree and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2012CMA/2595/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed four appeals against an award of compensation for motor vehicle accident victims. The Court held there was no material illegality as the insurer failed to prove willful breach of policy conditions by the insured and declined to interfere with the compensation amounts.

What did the court decide?

All four appeals were dismissed. Consequent stay applications were also dismissed as they no longer survived.

Aamar Singh and Ors. Vs Mst Ramshree and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2591/2005 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2270/2005 (Amar Singh & Others Versus Munesh & Another)

¶5

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2592/2005 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2271/2005 (Amar Singh & Others Versus Karua @ Kalicharan & Another)

¶6

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2595/2005 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2274/2005 (Amar Singh & Others Versus Mst. Ramshree & Another)

¶7

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2596/2005 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2275/2005 (Amar Singh & Others Versus Purshottam & Ors.)

¶8

Date of Judgment :: 3^rd October, 2012

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶10

Mr. D.K. Garg, counsel for the appellants Mr. G.S. Rathore, counsel for the respondents

¶11

BY THE COURT :

¶12

Since all the aforesaid four appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 26.2.2005 passed by MACT, Dholpur, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that on 19.5.2002 claimants/deceased persons were going to their village Tighra in Tractor No. RJ-11/R 4491. The driver of the tractor drove the tractor rashly and negligently and overturned the same, as a result of which Girraj

¶14

¶15

Singh and Banwari died and Munesh, Karaua and others persons sustained injuries.

¶16

Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged. Claim petitions were filed. Notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was submitted and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award awarding different amount of compensations in different claim petitions. However, liberty has been given to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶17

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the owners of the offending vehicle have filed the aforesaid appeals.

¶18

At the out-set, learned counsel for appellants contended that even if it is presumed that there was breach of condition of the Insurance Policy, then the burden of proof was upon the insurer to prove the fact that such violation was in the knowledge of insured and it was willful on his part but in the present case the insurer of offending vehicle has miserably failed to prove that there was breach of any condition of the insurance

¶19

¶20

policy and it was willful on the part of the insured and it is well settled proposition of law that if there is no willful breach on the part of insured, then the insurer cannot escape from its liability. He has further contended that the officer of the Insurance Company specifically admitted in his cross examination that agricultural policy included all the agricultural works related to the agriculture, but whether the work of carrying agriculture produce is covered in the agricultural work of not, is not clear from the terms and conditions of the policy. In this way, the tribunal has committed material illegality while passing the impugned award. He further contended that the amount of compensation given by the learned Tribunal is also excessive as the income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 2400/- per month, whereas there was no proof of income produced by the claimants and the multiplier of 8 adopted by the learned Tribunal is also on higher side. Hence, the impugned award to the extent of giving recovery right to the Insurance Company from the appellants be quashed and set-aside.

¶21

E Converso, the learned counsel for

¶22

¶23

the Insurance Company defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite.

¶24

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence emerging on record, I do not think it proper to interfere in the impugned award dated 26.2.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, all the aforesaid four appeals fail and the same being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.

¶25

Consequent upon the dismissal of appeals, the stay applications, filed herewith, do not survive and they also stand dismissed.

¶26

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA),J.

¶27

¶28

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA

Aamar Singh and Ors. v. Mst Ramshree and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aamar Singh and Ors. v. Mst Ramshree and Ors.

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

Geeta Devi Vs Diwan Chand

Mool Chand Vs Shiv Karan

Panchu Ram Vs Sarfurdin and Ors.

Smt Shashi Jain Vs Narsi Lal

Bajaj Allianz General Insuranc Vs Sohan Lal and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurnac Vs Ram Swaroop and Ors.