Dismissed

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Ramrati and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Jul 2021CMA/6801/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed two connected miscellaneous appeals. The claimants sought enhancement of the Tribunal's award of Rs.13,38,000/- for death in a road accident. The insurance Company sought reduction, challenging the link between the accused vehicle and the accident. The Court found the Tribunal's award just and proper.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed and impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal remained in force.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6278/2017

¶3

Smt. Ramrati Devi W/o Late Shri Surender Pal, aged about 43 years R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultana, Tehsil Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶4

Manisha D/o Late Shri Surender Pal, aged about 27 years R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultana, Tehsil Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.

¶5

Praveen Kumar S/o Late Shri Surender Pal aged about 25 years R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultana, Tehsil Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.

¶6

Pritam Singh S/o Late Shri Surender Pal, aged about 24 years R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultana, Tehsil Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.

¶7

Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Singh, aged about 72 years R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultana, Tehsil Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Shri Rashid Ali S/o Shri Akhtar Ali R/o Behind Alleda Power House, Distt. Bundi, At Present Residing At Plot No. 1/313, Van Vihar Housing Board Colony Delhi By Pass, Eidgaah, Police Station Galtagate Jaipur Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle Loading Tampo No. Rj-45-Ga-0815)

¶11

Shri Bheem Shankar Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay Meena, R/o House No. 750, Defense Colony, Gurjar Ghati, Amer Road, Brahmpuri, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Owner of Loading Tempo No. Rj45--Ga-0815)

¶12

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, R/o K.s. Motors Ke Upar, Government Press Choraha, M.i. Road, Jaipur Rajasthan. (Insurance Company Vehicle Loading Tempo No. Rj-45-Ga-0815)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6801/2017

¶16

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Ridhi Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400051, Having Its Regional Office At Ii Floor,

¶17

(2 of 6)

¶18

[CMA-6278/2017]

¶19

Bhagwati Bhawan, Above P.l. Motors, Government Hostel Crossing, M.i. Road, Jaipur-Through Its Constituent Attorney

¶20

----Appellant

¶21

Versus

¶22

Smt. Ramrati Devi W/o Late Shri Surendra Pal Singh aged about 43 years R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultaana, Teh. Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶23

Kumari Manisha D/o Late Shri Surendra Pal Singh aged about 27 years R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultaana, Teh. Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶24

Praveen S/o Late Shri Surendra Pal Singh, aged about 25 years R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultaana, Teh. Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶25

Preetam S/o Late Shri Surendra Pal Singh, aged about 24 years R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultaana, Teh. Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶26

Laxmi Devi W/o Shriram Singh R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Post Sultaana, Teh. Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶27

Rashid Ali S/o Shri Akhtar Ali R/o Behind Of Aaled Power House, Dist. Bundi, Currently Residing At Plot No. 1/313, Van Vihar Housing Board Colony, Delhi Bypass, Idgaah, P.s. Galtagate, Jaipur (Driver Vehicle Loading Tempo No. Rj-45-Ga0815)

¶28

Bhimshakar Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Sahai Meena R/o Plot No. 750, Defence Colony, Garjar Ghati, Amer Road, Brahampuri, Jaipur Registered (Owner Vehicle Loading Tempo No. Rj-45Ga-0815)

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Advocate for the claimants

¶31

For Respondent(s)

¶32

: Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Advocate for the Insurance-company (through videoconferencing)

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

23/07/2021 :

(3 of 6)

[CMA-6278/2017]

These two miscellaneous appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in Claim Case No.1114/2014 titled as Smt. Ramrati Devi & Others Vs. Rashid Ali & Others, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the Claim Petition, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.13,38,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants on account of death of Surendra Pal Singh in a road accident and ordered to recover the compensation award amount from the non-claimants jointly and severally.

¶39

Since, these appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and award, they are being decided together by this common order.

¶40

In short, the relevant facts of the present case, are that on 26.06.2014 deceased Surendrapal was returning to his house after attending his duties, on his motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-18 SE 5721. He was riding his motorcycle on the right side of the road at normal speed and at around 07:30 P.M. when he reached near a crossroad at B-2 bypass, Mansarovar, a loading Tempo, bearing registration No.RJ-45-GA 0815, being driven rashly and negligently, came at a very high speed and hit vehemently the deceased Surendrapal Singh, due to which he fell down from his motorcycle and suffered grievous injuries, consequently, he died at the spot.

¶41

The learned Tribunal, after hearing all the parties, vide its impugned judgment and award dated 19.09.2017 partly allowed the Claim Petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation, as aforesaid in their favour.

¶42

Being dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.6278/2017 has been preferred by

¶43

(4 of 6)

¶44

[CMA-6278/2017]

¶45

the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount, whereas S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.6801/2017 has been filed by the appellant-company for reducing the award amount.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is abysmally low. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal determined the income shown in the documents without any cogent reasons and on the basis of conjectures. Counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has committed error while awarding interest @ 6% per annum only. Lastly, counsel 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.

¶47

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the insurance-company, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the claimants and submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in not considering the fact that F.I.R. in regard to accident was lodged on the next day of alleged accident against an unknown vehicle and there was not even a single evidence available on record to establish that the vehicle insured with the insurance-company was ever involved in the alleged accident. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has committed error in not considering the fact that neither any independent eye-witness nor the Investigating Officer stepped into the witness-box to corroborate the story of the claimants, as such, there was no justification to hold that the vehicle insured with the insurance-company was involved in the alleged accident. Counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has committed error in not even considering the fact that the insured vehicle, which is registered and insured as a commercial vehicle, is undisputedly a Transport Vehicle, as

¶48

(5 of 6)

¶49

[CMA-6278/2017]

¶50

per Section 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Counsel contends that the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding exorbitant amount of compensation to the claimants, while considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.7,500/- per month. Counsel also contends that the learned Tribunal has committed error in making an addition of 30% towards ‘future prospects’ of the deceased. Counsel further contends that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in deducting 1/4th towards ‘personal expenses’ of the deceased. Counsel pleads that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.85,000/- towards ‘loss of love & affection and Rs.10,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’. Lastly, counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on higher side without any factual foundation and, thus, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the amount awarded may be reduced adequately.

¶51

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

¶52

The learned Tribunal, while dealing with the evidence available on record, has taken 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 Surendra Pal Singh and has rightly awarded total Rs.13,38,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants and appellant-company, which is just and proper.

¶53

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

¶54

(6 of 6)

¶55

[CMA-6278/2017]

¶56

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any force in the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount, as also the appeal filed by the insurance-company for reducing the award amount, as they, being bereft of any merit, are hereby dismissed.

¶57

Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeals, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶58

Let a copy of this order be placed in connected appeal.

¶59

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶60

ASHOK/57-58

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Ramrati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Ramrati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anita and Others

Anita and Others Vs Damodar Prasad Tepan and Others

Icici Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Suresh Kanwar and Ors.

Mahendra S/O Amba Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Anita and Ors. Vs Kanaram and Ors.

New India Assurance Insuranceco Ltd. Vs Smt Anita and Ors.