The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company against a Tribunal award in a motor accident claim. The court approved the withdrawal of cross objections and confirmed the Tribunal's findings.
Cross objections dismissed as withdrawn; Appeal dismissed confirming the Tribunal's award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Cross Objection Civil No. 38 / 2015
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
Virendra Singh And Others
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2841 / 2012 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
Versus Virendra Singh And Others
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajneesh Gupta (cross objector)
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rizwan Ahmed
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Judgment / Order
06/04/2017
The cross objections have been filed after an inordinate delay of 255 days and no such application under Sec.5 of Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay. Learned counsel for cross objector wants to withdraw the cross objections.
He is permitted to do so.
Accordingly, the cross objections are dismissed as
withdrawn.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
(2 of 5)
[XOBJC-38/2015]
and award under appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred in the present case and with regard to an accident, a claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimant/s claiming compensation as mentioned therein. 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.
Against the impugned judgment and award under appeal, the appellant preferred the instant appeal for the relief as prayed for in it.
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.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions advanced on
(3 of 5)
XOBJC-38/2015]
behalf of appellant and requested for
maintaining/setting aside of award.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award under appeal. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, which are reproduced as under:-
fook|d la[;k 2
bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij gSA bl laca/k esa i=koyh ij tks lk{; is’k gqbZ gS mlesa , M 1 ohjsUnz us 'kiFk i= esa vafdr fd;k fd mlds cka;s iSj dh Vhfc;k fQcqykcksu dh gMmh dk QzsDpj gks x;k o pdukpwj gks x;k o vU; txg Hkh xEHkhj pksVksa vkbZ] og gMMh VwV tkus ds dkj.k pyus fQjus mBus cSBus o dk;Z djus ds v;ksX; gks x;k gwa o oSlkf[;ksa ds lgkjs thou th jgk gS o vikfgt gks x;k gSA nq?kZVuk ls iwoZ [kqyh etnwjh djds 4500@& :i;s ekgokj o xkao ePNhiqjk ls lqcg 40 fdyks nw/k ykdj xaxkiqj flVh esa cspdj 4500@& :i;s ekgokj vk; djuk crk;k gSA xokg us izn’kZ 12 ls 101 nokbZ;ksa ds fcy] iphZ o ;k=k fdjk;k ds fcy is’k fd;s gSaA
(4 of 5)
[XOBJC-38/2015]
ftjg chek dEiuh esa bl xokg us vafdr fd;k fd izn’kZ 94]
99] 82] 91] 96] 97] 98] 95] 100] 101] 92] 85] 77] 75] 69] 58] 32] 27] 10 ij esjk uke vafdr ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSus fMLpktZ fVfdV is’k ugha fd;kA ;g lgh gS fd eSus lsVsykbZV vLirky esa bykt ds dksbZ dkxtkr is’k ugha fd;sA xokg us viuk cSynkjh djuk vafdr fd;k gSA esjs ls nw/k [kjhnus okyksa dk uke esa ugha crk ldrk] dqN nw/k ?kj dk vkSj dqN [kjhn dj ykrk Fkk] esjh ifRu nw/k fudkyrh Fkh] eSa nw/k dk dksbZ fglkc ugha j[krk Fkk] vc esjs ?kj ij nw/k ugh gksrk gSA -----------
izn’kZ 77] 82] 91 ls 93] 95 ls 98] 100 o 101 cl
dh ;k=k ds fVfdV gSA gkykafd ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk vius iSj dk bykt ckgj djk;k x;k gS ysfdu ,slk dksbZ fjdkMZ ;k fMLpktZ fVfdV is’k ugha fd;k ftlls ;g tkfgj gksrk gks fd mls ckj ckj bykt ds fy;s t;iqj ;k ckgj vkuk tkuk iMk gks] ysfdu bl rF; dks ns[krs gq;s fd izkFkhZ us viuk bykt ckgj djk;k gS mls ifjogu O;; ds fy;s dqN jkf’k fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds }kjk bykt ds nkSjku ikSf"Vd vkgkj] vVsUMsUV o vU; fofo/k O;; Hkh fd;k
(5 of 5)
[XOBJC-38/2015]
x;k gS fygktk bl lHkh enksa esa izkFkhZ dks nks gtkj :i;s fnykuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA
blds vykok izkFkhZ ds }kjk tks fcy izn’kZ 12] 14] 16] 17] 19] 20] 22] 23] 25] 26] 28 ls 31] 33 ls 57] 59 ls 68 o 70 ls 72 is’k fd;s x;s gSa mudk dqy ;ksx 15751@& :i;s gksrk gS] tks jkf’k izkFkhZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks dqy 1]35]997@& :i;s 'kCns ,d yk[k iSrhl gtkj uks lkS lRRkkuos :i;s] {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh ekuk tkrk gSA vr% mDr fookfnr fcUnq blh izdkj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA
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 under appeal passed by the Tribunal, and thus the appeal having no force, is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award under appeal passed by the learned Tribunal.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA) J.
sandeep/-46-47
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
Virendra Singh
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
