Partly allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Geeta Devi and Others

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2019CMA/515/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation without examining the treating doctor to establish the cause of death, given no post-mortem was conducted. The appeal was partly allowed to remand the specific issue to the Tribunal for fresh evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal is directed to examine the treating doctor before deciding issue no. 1 afresh.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Geeta Devi and… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 515/2010

¶3

National Insurance Company Limited, through the Regional Manager, Jaipur Regional Office at LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant-Non-claimant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Geeta alias Kailashi w/o Late Lala Ram, aged about 43 years, by caste Meena, r/o Gram Dhuwala, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

¶7

Jagdish s/o Lala Ram, aged about 26 years, by caste Meena, r/o Gram Dhuwala, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

¶8

Mukesh s/o Lala Ram, aged about 23 years, by caste Meena, r/o Gram Dhuwala, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

¶9

-----Respondents-claimants

¶10

Girraj Sharma s/o Ramavtar Sharma, Indra Gandhi Nagar, D.C.M. Kota (Raj.)---Driver.

¶11

Mukhiya Prabhandak, Rajasthan Parivahan Nigam, Kota Agar, District (Raj.)---Owner.

¶12

Rajendra Singh Saluja s/o Harbans Singh, Sahayak Agar Prabhandak, Rajasthan Parivahan Nigam, Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶13

---Respondents-Non-claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Tyagi For Respondents: Mr. H.R. Kumawat claimants(s)

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶15

Judgment / Order

¶16

16/01/2019

¶17

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in claim petition No.528/2007 whereby the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18,20,096/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CMA-515/2010]

¶20

Brief facts given rise to this appeal are that the respondentsclaimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act of 1988”) wherein it was averred that on 12.07.2007, one Lala Ram husband of the respondent-claimant No.1 and father of the respondents-claimants Nos.2 & 3, while riding a motor-cycle towards Deoli was hit by a bus bearing No. RJ-20P-5862 and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries later on.

¶21

The reply to the claim petition was filed by the appellant wherein it denied the averments made in the claim petition.

¶22

The claimants had produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the claim petition. While, no evidence was produced by the non-claimants. Thereafter, the learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18,20,096/- as compensation.

¶23

Hence this appeal.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has wrongly decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. There is no evidence on record which proves that the death of Lala Ram was as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which had occurred on 12.07.2007. Indisputably, no post-mortem was conducted and there is no reason or explanation on record as to why the same was not conducted. The counsel also submitted that accident had occurred on 12.07.2007 and Lala Ram died on 23.09.2007 in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Initially, he was treated at Deoli and was later referred to Jaipur for further treatment. While deciding issue No.1, the tribunal has inferred the cause of death as the injuries sustained in the accident only on the basis that the word "expired" was mentioned in the discharge

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CMA-515/2010]

¶27

ticket (Ex.105). The finding of the tribunal, therefore, on the issue regarding cause of death is illegal and against the material available on record.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsclaimants has opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and award.

¶29

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

This claim petition raises a very important question of law. In this case, it is an admitted position that the post mortem of the body of the deceased was not conducted and despite that, the learned tribunal has given a finding that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and that is why the claim petition was allowed for a sum of Rs. 18,20,096/-. The facts revealed that the accident took place in the month of July, 2007 and the deceased for the first time was admitted in the hospital on 22.07.2007. He was discharged on 29.08.2007 and after a lapse of about one month he was again admitted in the hospital. In the discharge ticket i.e. Ex.105, it has been mentioned that the deceased had a road accident history and after getting treatment for 39 days, the deceased ultimately expired on 23.09.2007. In this way, there has been some lapse on the part of the claimants to bring on record a direct cause of the death of the deceased visa-vis the accident in question. Even if no post mortem was conducted, the claimants could have produced and examined the doctor who treated the deceased to establish the aforesaid contention. The Motor Vehicles Act is a social legislation and its

¶31

(4 of 4) [CMA-515/2010]

¶32

main object is to grant relief to the victims of road accidents. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned tribunal itself was competent enough to call the doctor who treated the deceased, before arriving at a finding that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained in the accident in question. This should have been done to do substantial justice between the parties. As the learned tribunal failed to do so, this court is of the considered opinion that the lacuna left in the case may be removed by examining the doctor who treated/operated upon the deceased.

¶33

Therefore, the matter is remanded to the learned tribunal for deciding issue no. 1 afresh after examining the doctor.

¶34

Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the learned tribunal qua issue no.1 is set aside with a direction to the learned tribunal to examine the doctor who treated the deceased at the relevant time in view of the aforesaid observation. Thereafter, the learned tribunal shall pass the judgment afresh in light of the new material.

¶35

The tribunal shall not be influenced by any of the observations given in this judgment on the merits of the controversy.

¶36

Both the parties are directed to be present in the tribunal on 18.03.2019.

¶37

Record be sent back forthwith.

¶38

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶39

Mohit37

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Geeta Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Geeta Devi and Others

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

Kalu Ram Vs Kanwaljeet Singh and Another

Nandkishore S/O Sh. Harlal Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kana Ram Meena and Others

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Indra Devi and Ors.

Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs Roopa and Ors.

Kumari Suman Vs Phoola Alias Phool Singh and Ors.