Partly allowed

Smt Saroj Devi and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2019CMA/4802/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment is partly allowed. An application to admit the vehicle permit as additional evidence under CPC Order 41 Rule 27 was permitted. Consequently, the court modified the Tribunal's judgment, directing the respondents to pay the awarded compensation.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Tribunal is modified to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 8,20,000/- as compensation to the claimants.

Smt Saroj Devi and Ors. Vs Sanjay Kumar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4893/2017

¶3

Kartar Singh S/o Shri Harphool Singh, B/c Jat, R/o Bishanpura, Police Station- Surajgarh, At Present R/o Plot No.-50, Ann-Vihar Gokulpura, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Owner Of Vehicle

¶4

Sanjay Kumar S/o Sultan Singh, B/c Meghwal, R/o Chimma Ka Bas, Village Barela, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Driver Of Vehicle

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Shri Ramvilas, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶8

Miss Priya D/o Shri Ramvilas, Minor And Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saroj Devi, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶9

Ashish S/o Shri Ramvilas, Minor And Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saroj Devi, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶10

Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Budhram, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶11

Budhram S/o Nema Ram Since Deceased, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶12

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 570, Nigam Cross Road, Next To Royal Industrial Estate, Wadala W, Mumbai-400031, Through Its Branch Manager. Insurance Company Vehicle

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4802/2017

¶16

Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Shri Ramvilash, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶17

Ms. Priya D/o Late Shri Ramvilash, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Shri Ramvilash, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CMA-4893/2017]

¶20

Ashish S/o Late Shri Ramvilash, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Shri Ramvilash, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶21

Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Buddhram, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶22

Buddhram S/o Nemaram, B/c Ahir, R/o Kushalpura, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Died During Trial

¶23

----Appellants

¶24

Versus

¶25

Sanjay Kumar S/o Sultan Singh, B/c Meghwal, R/o Chimma Ka Bas, Tan Barela, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Driver Of Canter Vehicle No. Rj 14 Gc 6176

¶26

Kartar Singh S/o Shri Harphool Singh, B/c Jat, R/o Bishanpura, P/s Surajgarh, Presently At Plot No.-50, AnVihar Gokulpura, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Registered Owner Of Canter Vehicle No. Rj 14 Gc 6176

¶27

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 570, Nigam Cross Road, Next To Royal Industrial Estate, Wadala W, Mumbai-400031, Through Its Branch Manager. Insurance Company Of Canter Vehicle No. Rj 14 Gc 6176

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed & Mr. Sharvan Saini

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶31

Judgment / Order

¶32

10/01/2019

¶33

These misc. appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 14.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu in M.A.C.T. case No.787/2013 (29/11), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- as compensation to the claimants.

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

[CMA-4893/2017]

¶36

Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of death of Ramvilas in a road accident which occurred on 27.09.2010.

¶37

In the reply filed by Respondent No.6-insurnace company denied the averments made in the claim petition. It was also stated in the reply that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was plying without having a valid and effective permit and fitness certificate.

¶38

Necessary issues were framed by the learned Tribunal.

¶39

Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Thereafter, the tribunal decided issue No.3 partly in favour of claimants. While deciding the issue No.3, it was held by the tribunal that the offending vehicle was plying without having any effective permit and fitness certificate and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the insurance company was exonerated from paying the compensation.

¶40

Hence, these appeals have been filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and the claimants.

¶41

During the pendency of the appeals an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed for taking the permit on record as additional evidence. A copy of the same was provided to the counsel for the respondent-insurance company for its verification. The permit of the offending vehicle was verified by him and as per him the same was found to be genuine.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and on the appeals also.

¶43

(4 of 4) [CMA-4893/2017]

¶44

For the reasons stated in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the same is allowed and the certificate of permit dated 28.08.2017 is taken on record as additional evidence. Since, the said document is admitted by the counsel for the insurance company, the certificate of permit issued by office of the Additional Secretary, Regional Transport Office, Jagatpura, Jaipur is marked as Ex.NA-6.

¶45

Since, the reason, as to why issue No.3 was only partly decided in favour of the claimants, was that the offending vehicle was plying without having any effective and valid permit. The certificate is now taken on record as additional evidence and the same has not been disputed by the insurance company.

¶46

Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation so awarded by the court below and the respondent Insurance Company and appellant Kartar Singh owner of vehicle and appellant Sanjay Singh, driver of vehicle, are hereby liable to pay the same and hence, directed to jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

¶47

The judgment passed by the tribunal is modified accordingly and both the appeals are partly allowed accordingly.

¶48

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶49

Mohit53-54

Smt Saroj Devi and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Saroj Devi and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Saroj Devi and Ors. Vs Narendra Singh and Ors.

Smt Ram Niwasi Devi and Others Vs Ravi Shankar and Another

Sheopal Vs Hazari Lal and Ors.

Kartar Singh and Anr. Vs Smt Saroj Devi and Ors.

Mahbub Vs Aash Mohammad and Ors.

Omkarmal Jat @ Onkar S/O Chandra Ram Vs Puranmal Yogi S/O Ramunath