Dismissed

Feran Singh v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2016CMA/2787/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award allowing compensation against an insurer. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, deeming the cited legal precedent inapplicable to the facts and noting the Tribunal accurately considered all aspects of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal affirming the claimants' compensation is upheld.

Feran Singh Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B.CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 2787 / 2006

¶4

Feran Singh

¶5

Omprakash

¶6

Madan Singh

¶7

All Sons of late Shri Tejsingh, Resident of Village Nasilpur, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur (Raj.).

¶8

Appellants/ Non-Claimants.

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through branch Manager, Branch office Dhoolkot Road, Dholpur (Raj.).

¶11

Kaptan Singh son of Shri GaneshiLal, Resident of Village Bagcholi, Police Station Mania, District Dholpur (Raj.).

¶12

Ramsewak son of shri Rambharosi, by caste Vaishya, Resident of Mangrol Road, Maniya, Tehsil and District Dholpur (Raj.).

¶13

Respondents/Non-Claimants

¶14

Smt. Ganga Devi Widow of Umrav.

¶15

Virendra

¶16

Raju

¶17

Sunil

¶18

Kumari Omwati

¶19

Kumari Sohan Dei

¶20

All sons and daughters of Late Shri Umrav Singh, All are minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Ganga Devi,

¶21

All by caste Lodha, Resident of village Luhari Ka Pura, Tehsil And District Dholpur (Raj.).

¶22

Respondents/Claimants.

¶23

__________________________________________ For appellants: Mr. Anil Jain For Respondents : Mr. Virendra Agrawal

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

(2 of 5 )

[CMA-2787/2006]

Judgment

06/12/2016

Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 6.3.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur (‘the learned Tribunal’ for short hereinafter) in MAC No. 563/2004 whereby he allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal mentioning therein that on 8.1.2002 at about 6-7 P.M deceased Umrav was coming through tractor No. RJ-11/R5/127 after loading begs of mustard. The driver Kaptan Singh was driving the tractor in Village Bagcholi, due to rash and negligent driving. In the said accident Umravsingh died on spot. Regarding this incident an FIR No. 16/2002 was registered at Police Station Maniya. Thus, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.22,65,000/-.

¶31

Thereafter, notices were issued. Reply to the claim petition was filed before the learned Claims Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal framed the issues.

¶32

The learned Tribunal after hearing passed the impugned judgment and award. The

¶33

(3 of 5 )

¶34

[CMA-2787/2006]

¶35

appellant/s aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award has preferred instant appeal before this Court.

¶36

Counsel for the appellants nonclaimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in directing the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner in which it has not been proved by the insurance company that the vehicle was plying for commercial purpose. Counsel has further submitted that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company at the time of said accident and it was the duty of the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant because the insurance company has charged the premium from the owner for this purpose. Counsel has further submitted that the Insurance company has not produced any evidence in this respect that the said tractor was plying for the commercial purpose on the day of accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is on mistaken to pass an award for compensation and to recover this amount from the owner. Counsel has further submitted that the tribunal has not considered and appreciated this fact of the case that the said tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and on the day of accident it was carrying the begs of mustered of the appellants/ owner from the agricultural field

¶37

(4 of 5 )

¶38

[CMA-2787/2006]

¶39

of the appellants. This act comes in the purview of the agricultural purpose. Counsel has submitted that the deceased was the labourer and was engaged for loading and unloading the begs of mustered. Therefore, the observations to give the right to recover the amount of compensation to the insurance company from owner is wrong and illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. Thus the impugned judgment /award passed by the learned tribunal is illegal, perverse and against the settled principles of law and against the material available on record. In support of his submission, counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Jabalpur Vs. Rainki Bai & Others, 1998(1) TAC 198(MP).

¶40

On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance copmany has opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award and requires no interference of this Court. In support of his case, counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:

¶41

New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati & Ors., MACD 2007(1) SC 265;

¶42

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan & Ors., MACD 2007(1) SC 541; and

¶43

(5 of 5 )

¶44

[CMA-2787/2006]

¶45

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Charan & Ors., (2012) 1 CCR (Raj.) 594;

¶46

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me including the above judgments .

¶47

From a perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal it is clear that the learned tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has considered each and every aspect of the matter, thus requires no interference of this Court. However, the judgment cited by the counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶48

In the result this civil misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment and award dated 6.3.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur in MAC No. 563/2004 is affirmed.

¶49

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

Feran Singh v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Feran Singh v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Prabhati and Ors. Vs Ayub Khan and Ors.

Shokat and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Satish Kumar Arora Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Arvind Kumar Vs Madho Lal

Salim @ Kallan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bablu Singh @ Babu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp