Dismissed

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Mahendra Singh

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2018CMA/3247/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an insurer's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The single judge held the Tribunal did not err in assessing compensation or directing the insurer to pay first and recover later, staying with the Tribunal's finding on quantum.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was rejected; the impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were upheld.

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Mahendra Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3247/2018

¶3

United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Office Fatipura Bedla Road Udaipur (Raj.) And Gorikunj Rajnagar Road Kankroli Tehsil And District Rajsamand. (Insurance Company)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mahendra Singh S/o Chandan Singh Shri Gumaan Singh, Aged About 12 Years, B/c Chadana, Minor Through Natural Guardian Shri Chandan Singh Caste Chandana R/o Morana Ki Bhagal, Tehsil Charbhuja, District Rajsamand.

¶7

Ugaram S/o Mahendra Ram, B/c Bheel, R/o Sanau Tehsil Chotan District Barmer. (Driver Of The Insured Vehicle)

¶8

Achal Singh S/o Jabbar Singh, B/c Chouhan, R/o Baldev Nagar Barmer, District Barmer. (Owner Of The Insured Vehicle)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Singhi For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia claimant-caveator

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶12

Order

¶13

10/12/2018

¶14

Appellant-Insurer has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 27.07.2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’). Learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, while adjudicating the claim of respondent-claimant under Section 166 of the Act, quantified and awarded compensation to the tune of

¶15

(2 of 4) [CMA-3247/2018]

¶16

Rs.4,76,600/- for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident involving insured vehicle Truck No.RJ-46-GA-1215.

¶17

The facts, in brief, are that respondent-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, inter-alia, on the ground that while he was travelling on motorcycle as pillion rider, the insured vehicle collided with it and as a result of which he sustained grave and serious injuries. In the accident other incumbent Shambhu Singh also died. For quantifying compensation to the tune of Rs.20,95,000/-, it is pleaded by respondent-claimant that he was 12 years of age at the time of incident and was prosecuting his studies besides notionally earning Rs.30,000/- per annum. In order to show gravity of the injuries suffered, a certificate was produced showing 40% permanent disability. The claim amount was quantified under different heads including the medical expenses incurred by him.

¶18

The claim petition is contested by driver and owner of the vehicle as well as Insurer. The Insurer, in its reply, raised a specific objection that driver of the Truck was having no valid driving licence and further no permit for plying the vehicle on highways was held by the insured.

¶19

Learned Tribunal settled three issues for determination and parties led their evidence. While examining Issue No.1 relating to rash and negligent driving, upon appreciation of evidence, learned Tribunal decided the same in favour of respondent-claimant and against insurer and other non-claimants. Adverting to Issue No.2, which was settled on the basis of objections raised by Insurer,

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CMA-3247/2018]

¶22

learned Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the insured was not holding valid permit for plying vehicle on highways and, accordingly, while deciding the issue, learned Tribunal directed the Insurer to first pay compensation and then recover the same from driver and owner of the vehicle. The crucial issue, i.e., Issue No.3, concerning quantum of compensation, was examined by learned Tribunal objectively and relying on the disability certificate, learned Tribunal finally assessed permanent disability up to 25%. With this finding and considering the medical expenses incurred by respondent-claimant, total amount was quantified, as aforesaid.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award.

¶24

Upon perusal of impugned judgment and award, in my opinion, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding Issue Nos. 1 & 2. The decision of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.2 is also supported by a decision of Supreme Court in case of Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. : 2018 ACJ 2430. As regards compensation amount determined and awarded by learned Tribunal, suffice it to observe that in view of certificate of permanent disability produced showing 40% disability , the learned Tribunal has moderately assessed the same at 25% and, accordingly, awarded compensation. In view thereof, the amount of compensation determined by learned Tribunal cannot be categorized as excessive or exorbitant. Moreover, learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.2, has categorically held that the

¶25

(4 of 4)

¶26

[CMA-3247/2018]

¶27

Insurer shall first pay the amount of compensation and then shall be at liberty to recover the same from the Insured.

¶28

In view thereof, no case for interference with the impugned judgment and award is made out. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.

¶29

(P.K. LOHRA),J
16-Bharti/-

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Mahendra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Mahendra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju @ Rajendra @ Rajkumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Daljeet Singh Vs Nirmal Singh

Samandu Devi Vs Ramniwas @ Mahesh

Amrik Singh Vs State

Raja Ram Vs Union of India

Smt Sundari Vs State