In an S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's award allowing a motor accident claim. The court rejected the appellant's contention that no accident occurred, holding the witness testimony reliable.
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's award allowing the claim.
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. 2555/2018
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. , Having Its Registered Office At 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Ridhi Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400051, Having Its Regional Office At II Floor, Bhagwati Bhawan, Above P.L. Motors, Government Hostel Crossing, M.i. Road, Jaipur-Through Its Constituent Attorney
----Appellant-Non-Claimant
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
(2 of 3)
[CMA-2555/2018]
09/07/2018
Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by claimants, was allowed.
Leaned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petition. Infact, no accident as alleged had taken place. The offending vehicle has been falsely involved in this case.
Appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Vinod Kumar in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 28.04.2015.
Case of the claimants was that on the day of accident, deceased was driving the motorcycle along with his wife Rinky Devi and Vinod Kumar. In the meantime, Pickup bearing registration No. RJ-29-GA-2375 driven by respondentRamswaroop came from opposite direction and struck against the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The pickup was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, As a result, Vinod Kumar had died.
Rinky Devi appeared in the witness-box as AW-1 and deposed with regard to the manner of accident.
A perusal of the site plan prepared by the Investigating Agency reveals that the Pickup by coming on the wrong side of the road had stuck against the motorcycle driven by the deceased.
Although, in the present case, accident had occurred on 28.04.2015 and the FIR was lodged on 05.05.2015, but the said fact in itself is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of AW-2. AW-
(3 of 3)
[CMA-2555/2018]
1 was cross-examined by the opposite side and her testimony with regard to manner of accident could not be shaken (statement of AW-1 shown by the learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments). Statement of AW-1 being natural inspires confidence.
In the present case, learned Tribunal by basing reliance on the statement of AW-1 Rinky Devi had rightly held that the Vinod Kumar had died on account of accident, which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-Ramswaroop while driving the offending vehicle.
No other contention has been raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant.
Dismissed.
(SABINA),J
Sudha/39
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the claim petition for compensation on account of death in a motor vehicle accident.
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rinky Devi
Somwati
Ravi Kumar
Banwarilal
Kumari Asha
Sabina, Mrs. Justice
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
