Dismissed

Reliance General Ins Company Limited v. Mangi Lal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Nov 2023CMA/1400/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed civil miscellaneous appeals filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation and by the insurance company for quashing the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, holding both appeals bereft of merits.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed as being bereft of merits.

What the court decided

Reliance General Ins Company Limited Vs Mangi Lal… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:35947]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1680/2017

¶4

Mangi Lal Son Of Karna Ram,

¶5

Vishal Son Of Mangi Lal, aged 7 years

¶6

Annu D/o Mangi Lal, aged 5 years Appellant Nos. 2 And 3 Are Minors Through Guardian Father Mangi Lal, Residents Of Village Dhan Jhanwar, District Jodhpur.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Dud Singh Son Of Bheru Singh, Resident Of Baludiya Village, Post Savadari, Devgarh Madariya Police Station, District Rajsamand (Driver Of Truck No. 3011)

¶10

Sohan Lal Mistry Son Of Shri Ganesh Ji Mistry, Resident Of Village Dewar, Police Station Dewar, District Rajsamand, Presently Resident Of Parwati Bungalow, Suncity Bopal, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (Owner Of Vehicle)

¶11

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 19, Reliance Center, Balchand Heerachand Marg, Bellar East, Mumbai (Insurer Of Vehicle)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1400/2017

¶15

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Regional Manager, 6th Floor, Man Upasana Tower, Sardar Patel Marg, "C" Scheme, Jaipur.

¶16

----Appellant

¶17

Versus

¶18

Mangi Lal S/o Karna Ram, aged about 32 years

¶19

Vishal S/o Mangi Lal, aged about 10 years

¶20

Sushri Annu D/o Mangi Lal, aged about 7 years Respondent No. 2 And 3 are minors through their Natural Guardian Father Mangi Lal, R/o Than Jhanwar, District Jodhpur. Claimants

¶21

Dud Singh S/o Bheru Singh, R/o Village Baludiya Post Sawadadi, Police Station Devgarh Madariya, District Rajsamand. Driver

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:35947]

[CMA-1680/2017]

Sohan Lal Mistri S/o Ganesh Ji, R/o Devar, Police Station Devar, District Rajsamand. At Present - Parwati Bangale, Suncity Bopal, District Ahmedabad Gujrat. Owner

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

For Claimants : Mr. BR Bishnoi For Insurance Company : Mr. TRS Sodha

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶29

Judgment

¶30

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/2023

¶31

The present civil miscellaneous appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are directed against the judgment and award dated 04.04.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur (the Tribunal, for short) in Claim Case No. 402/2012 (2688/14) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 6,64,550/- as compensation to the claimants.

¶32

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1680/2017 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the award. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1400/2017 is filed by the Insurance Company for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award. Since both the appeals pertain to same incident and involve connected issues, they are being decided by this common judgment.

¶33

Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on 13.06.2011, the deceased Smt Kamla Devi was coming from Kuda Bishnoiya to her native place on a motorcycle bearing no. RJ-19-SW-0244 when the driver of truck bearing no. GJ-1-BV3011 hit the motorcycle from behind in an attempt to overtake the motor cycle. Due to this accident, the deceased sustained injuries

[2023:RJ-JD:35947]

[CMA-1680/2017]

(3 of 4)

and ultimately succumbed to death. A claim petition was filed by the claimants before the learned Tribunal which was partly allowed and a compensation of Rs. 6,64,550/- was granted. The nonclaimants were held jointly and severally liable.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a meagre compensation to the claimants. It is submitted that the deceased earned Rs. 6000/per month and the learned Tribunal has assessed her income at Rs. 3000/- which has resulted into such low compensation. It is therefore prayed that the compensation be enhanced suitably in accordance with law.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company submits that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are contrary to the material available on record. The claimants have failed to prove the negligence of truck driver and thus, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. Further, the FIR of the accident was lodged after 7 days without assigning any proper reason which casts a suspicion over the involvement of the truck in the accident. Thus, it is prayed that the Insurance Company may be exonerated from its liability.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment makes it clear that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 3000/-. No documentary evidence has been led on behalf of claimants to support that she used to earn Rs. 6000/- per month. The claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was self employed. This, in my opinion, in absence of any documentary

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:35947]

[CMA-1680/2017]

evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 3000/-. Further, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation in the circumstances of the case.

¶45

With respect to the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 7 days, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the basis of documentary evidence available on record that the deceased was admitted in Mathuradas Mathur Hospital on 13.06.2011 and died on 20.06.2011. The FIR was lodged on the day of her death itself that is on 20.06.2011. Hence, the delay in lodging the FIR is sufficiently explained since the first priority of the husband as a reasonable prudent person is to cater to his injured wife. The truck was insured with the Insurance Company and thus the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liablity.

¶46

Consequently, both the appeals, being bereft of merits are hereby dismissed.

¶47

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶48

CPG/-

Reliance General Ins Company Limited v. Mangi Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Reliance General Ins Company Limited v. Mangi Lal 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

Arjun Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Surana Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaleem @ Guccha Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dhanraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Gursahib Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharda @ Silochana Vs State of Rajasthan