Dismissed

Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Naya and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2019CMA/1253/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed claiming the tractor was not involved in the accident. The court held evidence proved the driver statements showed the deceased was a pedestrian hit by that specific tractor. The calculated compensation was upheld based on established law. The appeal was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Naya and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1253/2018

¶4

Hdfc Agro General Insurance Company Limited Through Assistant Manager Claim, First Floor, N.k. Tower, Plot No. 49, Opposite Kohinoor Tower, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Naya S/o Punjiya, By Caste Meena,

¶8

Smt. Rukmani W/o Naya Meena, Both Are R/o Mungana, Tehsil Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

Bheema S/o Bheriya, By Caste Meena, R/o Timroophala Mungana Tehsil Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh. Driver

¶10

Manohar Lal S/o Magan Lal, By Caste Sharma, R/o Mungana, Tehsil Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh. Owner

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha For Respondent(s) : -----

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶14

Order

¶15

06/08/2019

¶16

No one has appeared after service.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the permission to raise all pleas in terms of Section 170 of M.V. Act was granted by the learned Tribunal.

¶18

This appeal is being preferred by the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle tractor insured with them was not involved in the accident.

¶19

It has been the plea of the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal that the concerned deceased was sitting on

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CMA-1253/2018]

¶22

the tractor and therefore, the Insurance Company could not be held to be liable as he was not walking as a pedestrian.

¶23

The record was called.

¶24

From the record and perusal of the statements, it is apparent that both the respondents No.1 Bheema and respondent No.2 Manoharlal have nowhere stated that the deceased Prakash was sitting on the tractor or that he was sitting on the trolley of the tractor on the other hand, a specific evidence has come on record in terms of AD-1 Naya and AD-2 Mohanlal, who specifically mention that Prakash was walking on the road when the tractor hit him resulting in his death. Thus, the evidence has come on record that the tractor was directly involved causing the death of the deceased.

¶25

However, learned counsel submits that the name of the driver and number of tractor were not mentioned in the FIR and thus, there is likelihood that the tractor involved in the accident was a different one.

¶26

However, it is noticed from the record of the trial court, charge sheet was produced as Exhibit-2, which mentions of the concerned tractor being involved in the accident, which was later on released on Supurdgi to the owner, who admits that tractor was involved in the accident. The Insurance Company has not found to have taken any action against the owner or challenged the statements of the owner that the tractor was involved in the accident.

¶27

In view thereof, the sufficient evidence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities has come on record to show that the tractor was involved in the accident which resulted in the death of deceased Prakash, who was walking on the road.

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CMA-1253/2018]

¶30

As regards the assessed compensation, this Court finds that the same has been calculated by the learned Tribunal strictly in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.

¶31

In view thereof, no interference is called for. The appeal is therefore, found to be devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. The record, which has been called before this Court be sent back forthwith. The applications stand disposed

¶32

of.

¶33

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶34

62-Zeeshan/-

Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Naya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Naya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Chandra Vs Dashrath Singh and Ors.

Mst. Sovni and Ors. Vs Prathvi Raj Singh and Ors.

Jangir Singh Vs R.S.R.T.C.and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Geeta

Gangaram Vs Firm Suhalka and Comapny

Ram Prakash Vs Shri Ram General Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.