The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in deciding the issue regarding the manner of accident without evidence, as the claimants failed to examine an eye-witness. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed.
Tribunal award dated 21.03.2009 set aside; issue No. 1 decided against claimants; claim petition dismissed.
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. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2259/2009
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., having Its Registered Office At Ge Plaza, Airport Road, Yarawada, Pune411006 And Having Its Regional Office At O-12 A, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Through Its Constituent Attorney.
----Appellant-Non-Claimant
Versus
---Respondents-Claimants
| For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal |
|---|
| For Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Vinay Mathur |
| For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia |
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
05/07/2018
(2 of 3)
[CMA-2259/2009]
Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 21.03.2009 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the claimants, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claim petition had been filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as ‘ the Act’). The claim petition was not maintainable as the income of the deceased was pleaded as Rs. 1,14,500/- per annum. Claim petition could have been filed under Section 163-A of the Act claiming compensation with regard to the deceased, whose income was less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR was lodged by Devi Lal, who had allegedly witnessed the accident. However, Devi Lal was not examined as a witness before the Tribunal by the claimants to establish the manner of accident.
Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the appeal.
In the present case, claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act seeking compensation on account of death of Mahesh Kumar out of use of offending vehicle. It was the case of the claimants that on 19.09.2004 Mahesh Kumar was driving the Car bearing registration No. RJ-14-4C-3152 from Jaipur to Ajmer. At about 12.00 noon when, he reached near Mandariya Bye Pass Jaipur Road National Highway, some unknown vehicle struck against the Car driven by Mahesh Kumar. As a result, Mahesh Kumar had died.
On the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal had framed issue No. 1 to the effect as to whether Mahesh Kumar had died while
(3 of 3)
[CMA-2259/2009]
driving the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-14-4C-3152 on 19.09.2004 at about 12.00 noon.
Before the Tribunal, claimants examined AW-1-Savitri Agarwal widow of Mahesh Kumar. The said witness in her crossexamination deposed that she had not witnessed the accident. Claimants had failed to examine any eye-witness to establish the manner of accident. As per exhibit-1, FIR was lodged by Devi Lal on 19.09.2004 with regard to the accident. A perusal of the FIR, reveals that Devi Lal was travelling alongwith the Mahesh Kumar in the Car. The car was being driven by Mahesh Kumar. However, Devi Lal has not been examined by the claimants to prove the manner of accident. The owner of the vehicle was proceeded exparte before the Tribunal. Insurance Company had denied the factum of accident. Insurance Company has been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the alleged eye-witness.
In these circumstances, in the absence of any evidence on record with regard to the manner of accident, learned Tribunal has erred in deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants.
Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is reversed and the said issue is decided against the claimants.
In view of finding on issue No. 1, the claim petition filed by the claimants was liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award passed by the Tribunal dated 21.03.2009 is set aside. Consequently, the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed.
(SABINA),J
Sudha/04
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable in light of the claimants' failure to examine an eye-witness to establish the manner of the accident.
Whether the Tribunal erred in deciding issue No. 1 on the facts and evidence before it.
What was the proper decision regarding the claim petition filed by the claimants.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
Savitri Agarwal
Madhuri Agarwal
Pankaj Agarwal
Ghanshyam Agarwal
Pramila Agarwal
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
