Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Company v. Smt Sushila Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Apr 2023CMA/2361/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the compensation award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to claimants in a motor accident case. The appellant argued the vehicle involvement was wrongly established. The court found the Tribunal's decision correct based on the filed chargesheet and the driver's admission, dismissing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the appeals filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the compensation award.

The Oriental Insurance Company Vs Smt Sushila Devi… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2361/2006

¶3

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Madanganj-Kishangarh, through Branch Manager, 5, Johari Bazar, jaipur having its Regional Office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, through its Constituted Attorney.

¶4

----Non-Claimant/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.Smt Sushila Devi w/o Late Shri Rameshwar lal Jat, aged about 23 years,

¶7

2.Ashok Kumar S/o late Shri Rameshwar lal Jat, aged about 8 years

¶8

3.Sunil s/o Late Shri Rameshwar Lal Jat, aged about 6 years 4.Bharon Ram s/o Mohru Ram Jat, aged about 62 years, Respondent No.2 and 3 being minor through their natural guardian and grandmother Smt. Sushila Devi w/o Late Shri Rameshwar Lal Jat

¶9

All r/o Nalawati Dhani, Mahapura, Police Thana Bagru, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

¶10

----Claimants/Respondents

¶11

5.Kailash Chand s/o Sita Ram Saini, r/o Gohdila ki dhani, tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur (Driver & Owner Vehicle No.RJ-14-G9778)

¶12

---Non-Claimants/Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2747/2006

¶15

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Madanganj Kishangarh, through Branch Manager, 5 Johari Bazar, Jaipur having its Regional Office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, through its Constituted Attorney.

¶16

----Non-Claimant/Appellant

¶17

Versus

¶18

1.Hemraj s/o Sita Ram Jat, aged about 19 years, r/o Bardwalon ki Dhani, Keshavpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt Jaipur

¶19

----Claimant/Respondent 2.Kailash Chand s/o Sita Ram Saini, r/o Gohdila ki Dhani, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt Jaipur (Driver & Owner Vehicle No.RJ-14-G9778)

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CMA-2361/2006]

¶22

---Non-Claimant/Respondent

¶23

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Virendra Agarwal,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Satyapal Poshwal, Adv.
	Mr. D. K. Dixit,Adv.

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶25

Order

¶26

ORDER RESERVED ON : 17/04/2023 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19/04/2023

¶27

The aforesaid two appeals have arisen from the judgment/award dated 25.03.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur, District Jaipur in Claim Case Nos.898/2005 titled as “ Smt. Sushila Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Chand & Ors.” and 899/2005 titled as “ Hemraj & Ors. Vs. Kailash Chand and Ors.” whereby Tribunal allowing the claim petitions awarded compensation in favour of the respondents-claimants.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while deciding the claim petitions, learned Tribunal had not appreciated the evidence produced by the Insurance Company. He further submits that FIR was lodged on 20.06.2004 on the basis of the report submitted by ASI Bhanwar Singh. At that time, dead body of Rameshwar was lying on the spot and injured Hemraj was found in unconscious condition. Claimant Smt. Sushila is the widow of deceased Rameshwar who is not the eye witness. Hemraj who sustained injury admitted in his evidence that he become unconscious at the time of accident and remained

¶29

[CMA-2361/2006]

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

unconscious upto 19.07.2004. He further submits that there was no material available on record to establish that vehicle in question was involved in the accident and mere filing of chargesheet is not sufficient to establish the involvement of the vehicle. He further submits that during investigation, statement of Ramotar s/o Birdi Chand was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police authority on 22.06.2004 in which he stated regarding offending vehicle No. RJ-14-G-9778. He further submits that Hemraj in his cross examination clearly stated that he did not know Ramotar. The present vehicle was falsely implanted in this case for getting the compensation. So, involvement of the vehicle was wrongly found by the Tribunal. So, findings of the learned Tribunal regarding involvement of the alleged vehicle be set aside.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Akeela Bano & Ors. Passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1710/2022, decided on 17.01.2023.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that after the investigation, chargesheet has been filed and Investigating Agency found the alleged vehicle involved in the accident. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that notice under Section 133 of M.V. Act was also given in which Kailash Chand admitted that he was driving the alleged vehicle and he is owner of the alleged vehicle. So, learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident was caused by

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CMA-2361/2006]

¶36

respondent-Kailash Chand through alleged vehicle. So, appeal be dismissed.

¶37

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

¶38

It is an admitted position that charge-sheet has been filed against respondent Kailash Chand who was the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Claimants in their evidence clearly proved chargesheet as well as other documents. During investigation, notice under Section 133 of M.V. Act was given to respondentKailash Chand and Kailash Chand admitted the fact that he was driver and owner of alleged vehicle at the time of accident.

¶39

In my considered opinion, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding Issue Nos.1 and 2 against the appellant. So, present appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.

¶40

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶41

Seema/94-95

The Oriental Insurance Company v. Smt Sushila Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company v. Smt Sushila Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Umar and Ors. Vs Mohd Rayees Khan and Ors.

Shabbir and Ors. Vs Mst Sita Bai and Ors.

Somnath Son of Shri Ghanshyam Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Koshal Chouhan S/O Lt. Shri Harikishan Chouhan Vs Smt. Rukma Devi W/O Lt. Shri Harikishan Chouhan

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prakash Chand and Others

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prakash Chand Sharma and Ors.