Dismissed

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2024CMA/307/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Jodhpur considered appeals against an award of Rs. 13.36 lakhs in a motor accident claim. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings regarding the vehicle's implication and dismissed appeals, rectified in headnote. Both appeals were dismissed as no grounds for interference were found.

What did the court decide?

The judgment/award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 24.08.2018 for Rs. 13,36,000 is affirmed and the appeals are dismissed.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sumitra — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:3235]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 218/2019

¶4

Smt. Sumitra W/o Late Sh. Ramswaroop, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu (Rajasthan)

¶5

Banshilal S/o Late Sh. Ramswaroop, Aged About 11 Years, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sumitra W/o Late Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu (Rajasthan)

¶6

Vinod Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ramswaroop, Aged About 9 Years, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sumitra W/o Late Shri Ramswaroop, Aged 29 Years, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu (Rajasthan)

¶7

Sanju Kumari D/o Late Sh. Ramswaroop, Aged About 8 Years, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sumitra W/o Late Shri Ramswaroop, Aged 29 Years, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu (Rajasthan)

¶8

Hadman S/o Hiraram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu (Rajasthan)

¶9

Babu Devi W/o Hadman, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Shri Ram General Ins. Co. Ltd., E/8, Epip, Rico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur. (Insurance Company)

¶13

Tejpal S/o Hanumana Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Khandwa, Tehsil And District Churu (Rajasthan) (Owner Of Pickup No. Rj10-Ga-6170)

¶14

Balram S/o Hanumana Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Khandwa, Tehsil And District Churu (Rajasthan) (Driver Of Pickup No. Rj10-Ga-6170)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

Connected With

¶17

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 307/2019

¶18

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E/8, Epip, Riico, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Raj.) (Insurer Of Pickup No. Rj-10-Ga6170)

¶19

----Appellant

¶20

Versus

¶21

Smt. Sumitra W/o Late Ramswaroop, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarshaher, District Churu (Raj.)

¶22

Banshi Lal S/o Late Ramswaroop, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through His Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Sumitra W/o Late Ramswaroop Aged About 26 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarshaher, District Churu

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:3235]

[CMA-218/2019]

(Raj.)

Vinod Kumar S/o Late Ramswaroop, Aged About 6 Years, Minor Through His Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Sumitra W/o Late Ramswaroop Aged About 26 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarshaher, District Churu (Raj.)

¶28

Sanju Kumari D/o Late Ramswaroop, Aged About 6 Years, Minor Through Her Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Sumitra W/o Late Ramswaroop Aged About 26 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarshaher, District Churu (Raj.)

¶29

Hadman S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 56 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarshaher, District Churu (Raj.)

¶30

Badu Devi W/o Hadman, Aged About 54 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarshaher, District Churu (Raj.)

¶31

Tejpal S/o Hanumana Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Khandwa, Tehsil And District Churu. (Owner Of Pickup No. Rj-10-Ga-6170)

¶32

Balram S/o Hanumana Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Khandwa, Tehsil And District Churu. (Driver Of Pickup No. Rj-10-Ga-6170)

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	K.R. Saharan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vishal Singhal

¶35

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶36

Order

¶37

22/01/2024

¶38

The present appeals arise out of the judgment/award dated 24.08.2018 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sardarshahar, Churu in Claim Petition No.199/2016 (CIS No.133/2015) whereby an award for an amount of Rs.13,36,000/has been passed in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 28.09.2015, till the date of payment.

¶39

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.218/2019 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the award and S.B. Civil Misc.

[2024:RJ-JD:3235]

[CMA-218/2019]

(3 of 4)

Appeal No.307/2019 has been preferred on behalf of the Insurance Company challenging the award.

¶44

The case of the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal was that the present was a case of false implication of a vehicle and hence, the findings on issue Nos.1 & 4 as decided by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that the FIR in question had been lodged with a delay and it is clear that the vehicle has been implicated subsequently as the FIR does not mention the registration number/number of the offending vehicle.

¶45

However, no evidence whatsoever was led by the Insurance Company.

¶46

The learned Tribunal specifically observed and held that the FIR which was lodged on the very next day of the accident, cannot be said to be delayed by any logic. The Court further held that the witnesses as examined on behalf of the claimants specifically proved the factum of the accident. The FIR specifically mentioned about the make of the vehicle as well its colour and both the said facts completely tallied with the vehicle which had been seized during the police investigation.

¶47

In the specific opinion of this Court, the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal qua issue Nos.1 and 4 being totally in consonance with the material available on record does not deserve any interference and is hereby, affirmed. As observed by the learned Tribunal, AW-2 Ram Chandra, who was an eye witness to the accident, specifically deposed the factum of the accident as well as the Pick up No.RJ-10-GA-6170 to be the vehicle involved in the accident. There is nothing available on record to dispute the

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:3235]

[CMA-218/2019]

statements of AW-2 Ram Chandra and neither is there any cross examination on behalf of the Insurance Company so as to contradict the statements as made by him.

¶52

The findings on issue Nos.1 & 4 not being interfered with, the findings on issue Nos.2 & 3 are not required to be gone into. 7. So far as the appeal preferred on behalf of the claimants is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any ground on which the award/judgment in question deserves to be interfered with.

¶53

In view of the same, both the appeals stand dismissed . The judgment/award dated 24.08.2018 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sardarshahar, Churu in Claim Petition No.199/2016 (CIS No.133/2015) stands affirmed.

¶54

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶55

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶56

179-180/KashishS/-

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra

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

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Bheriya

Anita Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Poonaram Vs Cholamandalam Ms Genral Ins. Co. Ltd.

Sumitra Vs Shri Ram General Ins. Co. Ltd.

Papparam Vs Ganga

Girdhari Salvi Vs Raghunath and Ors.