Dismissed

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Leela Bai

Rajasthan HC24 May 2023CMA/32/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an insurer's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court refused to condone an inordinate delay due to lack of sufficient cause. On merits, the insurer's arguments were rejected as criminal acquittal does not bind civil liability and no evidence was shown regarding the dishonoured cheque.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as time-barred and devoid of merits; all pending applications were also dismissed.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32/2023

¶3

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8 E.P.I.P. RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (302017) (Insurer of Vehicle Loading Tempo No. RJ-09-GA-3467)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Leela Bai W/o Udai Lal Ji B/c Prajapat (Kumhar) occupation House Wife aged 26 years R/o Ghantiyawali Tehsil and District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶7

Mangi Lal S/o Bardi Chand B/c Prajapat (Kumhar) occupation labour aged 50 years R/o Ghantiyawali Tehsil and District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶8

Nani Bai W/o Mangi Lal Ji B/c Prajapat (Kumhar) occupation House Wife aged about 47 years R/o Ghantiyawali Tehsil and District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶9

Laxminarayan S/o Nand Ram Ji Prajapat aged adult R/o Prajapat Market, Chittorgarh Tehsil and District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶10

(Vehicle Owner Loading Tempo No. RJ-09-GA-346)

¶11

Mukesh S/o Bagtu Ram Ji Harijan aged adult R/o near F.C.I. Godam, Marwar Junction District Pali (Raj.) (Vehicle Driver Loading Tempo No. RJ-09-GA-346)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Vishal Singhal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manish Pitaliya

¶14

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶15

Order

¶16

24/05/2023

¶17

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (Raj.) in M.A.C. Case No.541/2012.

¶18

The appeal has been preferred with a delay of 188 days and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal.

¶19

[CMA-32/2023]

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

A perusal of the said application shows that not a single ground which can be termed to be sufficient or reasonable so as to explain the delay caused in filing the present appeal, has been averred.

¶22

Not a single date as to when the copy of the award was received, when the sanction to file the appeal was granted and when the same was prepared has been mentioned in the application. Only a vague averment that the delay has been caused for reasons beyond the control of the appellant has been made.

¶23

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj & Ors. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 held as under:-

¶24

“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

¶25

(3 of 4) [CMA-32/2023]

¶26

In the specific opinion of this Court, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the reason pleaded by the appellant cannot be termed to be a ground reasonable or sufficient so as to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal.

¶27

Moreover, it is admitted that the award amount has already been deposited by the insurance company with the Tribunal in the execution proceedings initiated by the claimants.

¶28

Even on merits, only two grounds have been raised by the appellant: Firstly , the driver involved in the accident had been acquitted by the criminal court and therefore, he cannot be termed to be negligent. Secondly , the cheque given by the owner of the vehicle qua the premium of the insurance policy had been dishonoured and therefore, the insurance company cannot be held to be liable.

¶29

So far as the above two grounds are concerned, it is the settled proposition of law that the findings in a criminal proceeding cannot bind the civil proceedings and further, as specifically found by the Tribunal, the driver was acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt and it was not an onerous acquittal. So far as the cheque being dishonoured is concerned, it is the specific finding of the Tribunal that no evidence qua the said pleading had been led by the insurance company. Although NAW-1 ‘Sikander Ali’, the officer of the insurance company, had appeared in the witness box but he also did not depose anything regarding the breach of the policy on account of the dishonour of the cheque.

¶30

In view of the specific findings of the Tribunal and nothing being available on record contrary to the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned even on merits.

¶31

(4 of 4) [CMA-32/2023]

¶32

The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed being time

¶33

barred as well as being devoid of merits.

¶34

The stay petition as well as all the pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶35

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶36

33-KashishS/-

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Leela Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Leela Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Mahendra Sahu

Munni Devi Vs Sunita

Nagar Parishad and Ors. Vs Mohammad Mansoor

Kalwant Singh @ Kaka Vs Gurdev Singh and Anr.

Kishan Gopal Vs Dharmchand

Lrs of Sagarmal Vs Municipal Council, Bikaner