Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Neeru Sehgal and Others

Rajasthan HC14 Jul 2021CMA/4491/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the National Insurance Company's appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor vehicle accident claim involving the death of a motorcyclist struck by a car. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on negligence and compensation amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant-company is dismissed. Pending applications are disposed of.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Neeru Sehgal and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4491/2016

¶3

National Insurance Company Limited having its Regional Office at Jeevan Nidhi, II Floor, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur through its constituted attorney.

¶4

----Non-claimant/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Neeru Sehgal w/o late Manish Sehgal

¶7

Nilansh Sehgal s/o late ManishSehgal

¶8

Jhanvi Sehgal d/o late Manish Sehgal

¶9

Neena Sehgal w/0 late Tek Chand Sehgal

¶10

Ashish Sehgal s/o Tak Chand Sehgal

¶11

Claimant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minor through natural guardian and mother Neeru Sehgal

¶12

All residents of 3-N-6, Talvanti Kota, District Kota

¶13

…. Claimants/respondents

¶14

Chitranjan Sharma s/o. Mahesh Sharma, R/o. House No.2-K-11, Mahaveer Nagar Extension Scheme, Kota

¶15

(Driver of Vehicle Car NO.RJ-20-CD-4743)

¶16

Lalchand Suman s/o Moolchand Suman, R/o Bhojpura, Tehsil Ladpura District Kota (Registered Owner of Vehicle Car No.RJ-20-CD-04743)

¶17

	----Non-claimants-Respondents
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Advocate (through Video-conferencing)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, Advocate

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶19

Order

¶20

14/07/2021 :

¶21

Instant miscellaneous appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 09.06.2016 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Kota (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. No.196/2015 titled as Neeru Sahgal & Others Vs. Chitranjan

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[CMA-4491/2016]

¶24

Sharma & Others, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.71,12,450/- in favour of the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 5 on account of death of Manish Sehgal in a road accident and ordered to recover the award amount from the appellant-company and non-claimants- respondent Nos.6 & 7 jointly and severely.

¶25

In short, the relevant facts of the present case are that on 25.01.2015 at 09:45 P.M. Manish Sehgal, husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 & 3, son of respondent No.4 and brother of respondent No.5 was coming to his house from Sanskrit Venkat Hall, Gobria Bavdi on his motor-cycle on the right side of the road. When Manish Sehgal reached the main road in front of Harish properties, a Car bearing registration No.RJ-20 CD 4743 being driven in rash and negligent manner, came at very high speed and hit Manish from behind due to which Manish fell down and suffered several injuries on his head, spleen and other parts of the body and later-on died.

¶26

Learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, vide its impugned judgment and award dated 09.06.2016, partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation, as aforesaid.

¶27

Being dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-company for reducing the award amount.

¶28

In the present case, the appeal filed by the claimantsrespondents has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2021.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-company submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record on issue No.1 in right perspective. Counsel further submits

¶30

(3 of 4) [CMA-4491/2016]

¶31

that F.I.R. was lodged against unknown vehicle and Police initially after investigation filed F.R. for want of vehicle. Counsel also submits that the statement of driver examined as NAW-1 clearly shows that the vehicle was being plied in a very normal speed and he was not negligent in any manner. Lastly, counsel submits that the learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No.4, has awarded excessive amount without having any factual foundation, thus, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the amount awarded may be reduced.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the nonclaimants/respondents, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-company and submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is low. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding total compensation in favour of the claimants, which is on lower-side and the same is liable to be enhanced suitably.

¶33

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and the material made available on record.

¶34

Learned Tribunal, while dealing with the evidence available on record, took into consideration all the aspects of matter viz., negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, monetary loss to the claimants on account of death of Manish Sehgal and rightly awarded a sum of Rs.71,12,450/- as compensation in favour of claimantsrespondent Nos.1 to 5, which is just and proper.

¶35

This Court is also in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award and there is no reason to take a different view already taken by the Tribunal.

¶36

(4 of 4) [CMA-4491/2016]

¶37

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any force in the appeal filed by the appellant-company, as it being bereft of any merit, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶40

ASHOK/54

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Neeru Sehgal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Neeru Sehgal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bhanu Jain W/O Late Ucchhav Kumar Jain

Bhanu Jain S/O Late Shri Uchchav Kumar Jain Vs Laduram S/O Purkharam

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Pooja Devi and Others

Seth Baldev Sahay Harsahay Mal Trust Vs Radhey Shyam Jangid

Smt Mukeshi Devi and Anr. Vs Ramu Meena and Ors.

Murti Vs Kishan Singh and Ors.