Dismissed

Iffco Tokia General Insurance Co. Ld v. Smt Roshni Devi and Others

Rajasthan HC22 Sept 2023CMA/4628/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance Company appealed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.12 lakh. The High Court found the quantum justified, witness testimony proved involvement, and the FIR delay was immaterial, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing the appeal and the stay application against the Tribunal's judgment and award.

Iffco Tokia General Insurance Co. Ld Vs Smt Roshni Devi and Others — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:24978]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4628/2012

¶4

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office At Iffco House, 3Rd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019, Having Its Regional Office At A-13, Third Floor, Near Khatipura Turn, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021- Through Its Constituent Attorney

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Roshni Devi W/o Late Sh. Dhumi Lal @ Prashant By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Riwali, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶8

Rohit S/o Late Sh. Dhumi Lal @ Prashant, By Caste Ahir Respondent No. 2 And 3 Being Minor, Through, R/o Village Riwali, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶9

Mohit S/o Late Sh. Dhumi Lal @ Prashant, By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Riwali, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶10

Hari Singh S/o Sh. Prahalad, By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Riwali, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶11

Smt. Saraswati Devi W/o Sh. Hari Singh, By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Riwali, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶12

Kanwar Singh S/o Sh. Ghisa Ram, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Kayasa, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar Driver Cum Owner Vehicle No. Rj-32-Ga-2746

¶13

Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh, By Caste Ahir, R/o Dumroli, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan Owner Vehicle No. Rj-32-Ga-2746

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain with Mr. Ram Dev Arya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur with Mr. Vijay Mathur

[2023:RJ-JP:24978]

[CMA-4628/2012]

(2 of 5)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶20

Order

¶21

22/09/2023

¶22

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973 against the judgment and award dated 03.08.2012 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Behror, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.81/2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 - claimants (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants') and awarded a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- in favour of the claimant.

¶23

The claimants submitted a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.46,29,000/-. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants and passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The amount of award passed by the learned Tribunal is also on a higher side. There is no plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. The claimants have failed to discharge his burden to prove the question of negligence/involvement. Hence, in the absence of testimony of

[2023:RJ-JP:24978]

[CMA-4628/2012]

(3 of 5)

any independent eye-witness, it cannot be said that the burden has been discharged by the claimants.

¶29

Learned counsel also submitted that mere filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of the insured vehicle is not sufficient to hold that the involvement of the vehicle is proved and it appears that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged vehicle and the FIR has been lodged to get the compensation.

¶30

Learned counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has committed grave error to consider the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/-, when the income was never proved. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal may be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants - respondents supported the impugned judgment and award and argued that there is no force in the appeal hence, it be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 10. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company on the ground of contributory negligence and quantum, but no evidence was produced on behalf of the Insurance Company. 11. It transpires from the perusal of the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal that the deceased-Dhumilal has expired in the accident. At the time of accident the deceased was 42 years of age and he was Manager and Partner in Aravali Stone Crasher, Behor and earning

¶31

(4 of 5) [CMA-4628/2012]

¶32

[2023:RJ-JP:24978]

¶33

Rs.10,000/- per month and in support of it, the claimants have produced partnership-deed and three months’ VAT Invoice, which were fully notorized.

¶34

Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, looking to the age of the deceased as 47 years according to postmortem report has rightly applied multiplier of 13. The deceased was survived by her four dependents, therefore, under the head of personal expenses, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4 of the assessed income of the deceased and thus, loss of income calculated by the learned Tribunal was Rs.11,70,000/-.

¶35

Under the conventional head, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/- each which comes to Rs.25,000/- and for funeral expenses Rs.5,000. It seems that learned Tribunal, for the death of deceased – Dhumilal, has not awarded the compensation on a very higher side. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal does not warrant any interference in this regard. Hence, on the question of quantum there is no force in the appeal. 14. It was contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the FIR was lodged with a delay of one day and the involvement of the vehicle has been made falsely. However, the learned Tribunal has rightly negated the defence on the count that the witness AW.2- Chajuram and witness AW.3- Virendra, who were eyewitnesses of the case, have proved the involvement of the vehicle during their oral testimony and charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the insured vehicle No.RJ-32-GA-2746. The accident was occurred on 28.09.2008 at 7.00 pm in the evening

[2023:RJ-JP:24978]

[CMA-4628/2012]

(5 of 5)

and the FIR was lodged on 29.09.2008 at 8.00 am. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR has been lodged falsely and belatedly and hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding Issue Nos.1 to 3 is just and proper.

¶40

No interference is thus warranted and the present appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.

¶41

Stay application too stands dismissed.

¶42

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶43

A. ARORA /-24

Iffco Tokia General Insurance Co. Ld v. Smt Roshni Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokia General Insurance Co. Ld v. Smt Roshni Devi and Others

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

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri Kishan Mehta and Ors.

Smt Anop Devi and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar and Ors.

Nawal Kishore Gupta Vs Suresh Kumar and Ors.

Vimla Devi and Others Vs Mittal Singh Solanki and Others

Kamlesh Vs Kalu and Others

Kailash Vs Ishwar Lal and Ors.