Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Devi Alias Rinku and Others

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2017CMA/1923/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed civil miscellaneous appeals filed by respondent insurers against a Tribunal's award in motor accident claims. Upholding the Tribunal's findings, the Court held that it was not just or proper to interfere with the lower authority's decision.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed confirming the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sita Devi Alias Rinku… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1923 / 2011

¶3

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd

¶4

----Appellant Versus

¶5

Sita Devi Alias Rinku And Others

¶6

----Respondent Connected With S.B.CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1921 / 2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd ----Appellant Versus Kailash Chand And Another ----Respondent S.B.CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1922 / 2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd ----Appellant Versus Smt Shanti Devi And Others ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr.Akshat Choudhary

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶8

Judgment / Order

¶9

15/02/2017

¶10

The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award under appeal/s.

¶11

Brief facts of the case are that with regard to the aforesaid accident, a claim petition was filed

¶12

(2 of 4)

¶13

[CMA-1923/2011]

¶14

on behalf of the claimant/s claiming compensation as mentioned therein.

¶15

Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Reply to the claim petition was filed and the learned Tribunal framed the issues. After hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned judgment & award under appeal.

¶16

Against the impugned judgment and award under appeal, the appellant preferred the instant appeal for the relief as prayed for in it.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate each and every aspect of the matter as also the evidence available on record. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts of the case. Hence impugned award deserves to be modified/enhanced.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and award under appeal/s. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, which are reproduced as under:-

fook|d la[;k& 1

(3 of 4)

[CMA-1923/2011]

8- fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZx.k dh nyhysa gS fd nq/kZVuk dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ eas thi dk uacj vo’;d vafdr ugha gS ysfdu nwljs fnu gh nq/kZVuk LFky dk uD’kk ekSdk rS;kj gqvk gS ftlesa thi ds uacj vafdr gSA ckn esa vuqla/kku foi{kh pkyd ds f[kykQ pkyku is’k gqvk gSA foi{kh pkyd ds f[kykQ 12 lky esa 4 eqdnesa ntZ gks tkus ls ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk fd ;g ekeyk >waBk rS;kj gqvk gSA chek dEiuh dh tkap fjiksVZ d;klksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA vkilh feyhHkxr dk dksbZ izek.k ugha gSA izLrqr lk{; ls ekeyk iwjh rjg lkfcr gSA

¶23

9- nwljh vksj fo}ku vf/koDrk foi{kh chek daiuh dh nyhysa gS fd ?kVuk ds nwljs fnu izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ gqbZ gS ftlesa Vddj ekjus okyh thi dk uacj vafdr ugha gSA fdlh vKkr okgu ls nq?kZVuk /kfVr gqbZ gSA foi{kh pkyd ds f[kykQ pkj eqdnesa igys ls gh nq/kZVuk ds py jgs gSA Dyse ysus ds fy, vkilh feyhHkxr ls >WwBk okgu fyIr fd;k x;k gSA fodYi esa mudk dguk gS fd LdwVj pkyd 'kjkc ds u’ks esa LdwVj pyk jgk Fkk mldh ykijokgh ls nq/kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ gSA -------------------

¶24

17foi{kh chek daiuh dh tkap fjiksVZ ds lkFk vKkr O;fDr dk csM gSM fVfdV is’k fd;k x;k gS ftls erd v:.k dqekj mQZ dkyw dk crk;k x;k gS blesa mldh lkal esa 'kjkc dh cncw gksus dk mYys[k gS ysfdu erd v:.k dh iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn’kZ&7 esa 'kjkc dh cncw dk bUnzkt ugha gSA bl lc ds vykok ,d {k.k ds fy, ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk;sa fd e`rd v:.k dqekj us 'kjkc ih j[kh Fkh rks Hkh uD’ks ekSds esa nf’kZr fLFkfr ds vuqlkj og viuh lgh lkbZM esa py jgk FkkA thi us viuh lkbZM NksM+dj xyr lkbZM esa tkdj LdwVj dks VDdj ekjh gSa vr% va’knk;h mis{kk dk vk{ksi lkfcr ugha gSA

¶25

18mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj izLrqr lk{; ls lkfcr gS fd foi{kh dze&1

¶26

us viuh thi dks ykijokgh ls pykdj LdwVj ij tkrs v:.k dqekj mQZ dkyw] ekaxhyky o dSyk’kpan dks VDdj ekjh ftlls v:.k dqekj mQZ dkyw o ekaxhyky mQZ eaxypan dh e`R;q gks xbZ ,oa dSyk’kpan ds pksVsa vkbZA vr% ;g fook|d izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA

(4 of 4)

CMA-1923/2011]

fook|d la[;k &2

19bl fook|d ds laca/k esa foi{kh chek daiuh dh dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA cgl ds nkSjku bl ij dksbZ cy Hkh ugha fn;k x;k gSA

¶31

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal as quoted herein above, the learned Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. I am in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Hence, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, and thus the appeal/s having no force, is/are hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶32

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶33

Sandeep/-131-133

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Devi Alias Rinku and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Devi Alias Rinku and Others

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

Surendra Saini Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ram Kumar Batad Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramgopal Dinodiya Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Dileep Pardi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pankaj Vs Khurshid and Ors.