Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surja Ram @ Suja Ram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Jul 2024CMA/3075/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of an appeal by the insurer and a cross-objection by claimants in a motor accident case. The Court upheld the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal's award of Rs 8,83,760, dismissing the appeal and cross-objection as no evidence supported the insurer's arguments regarding negligence or income exaggeration.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Civil Cross Objection are dismissed.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surja Ram @ Suja Ram and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:30101]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 130/2019

¶4

Shri Surja Ram @Suja Ram s/o Shri Harji aged about 48 years.

¶5

Smt. Subati W/o Shri Surja Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/ o Meghwalo Ka Bas, Banar, Jodhpur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Baksa Ram S/o Shri Chandra Ram, R/o Near Khoja Chakki, Maderna Colony, Jodhpur. (Registered Owner Bus No. Rj 19 Pa 5233)

¶9

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Near Hospital Near Pipar City, Tehsil Pipar, District Jodhpur. At Present - 1St Floor, 74-A, Bhati - N-Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur. (Insurer Bus No. Rj19 Pa 5233)

¶10

Pooja W/o Ratna Ram, D/o Shri Deva Ram, R/o Jajiwal Dhandhla, Tehsil And District Jodhpur. (Wife Of Deceased) ----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3075/2017

¶13

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pipar City, District Jodhpur Through Its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pal Road, Jodhpur.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

Surja Ram @ Suja Ram S/o Harji Ram, 2. Smt. Subati W/o Surja Ram, Both Resident Of Meghwalo Ka Bas, Banar, Jodhpur.

¶17

Hari Ram S/o Mangla Ram, Resident Of Bhopalgarh At Present Siyara Chokadi, P.s. Borunda Tehsil Pipar District Jodhpur Driver Of Bus No. Rj 19Pa 5233

¶18

Baksa Ram S/o Chandra Ram, Resident Of Near Khoja Chakki, Maderna Colony, Jodhpur. Owner Of Bus No. Rj 19Pa 5233

¶19

Pooja W/o Ratna Ram D/o Deva Ram, Resident Of Jajiwal Dhandhla, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Sankhla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kaushik

¶22

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

[2024:RJ-JD:30101]

[XOBJC-130/2019]

(2 of 6)

24/07/2024

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/Non Claimant- Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgement and award passed by the learned Judge Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jodhpur vide award dated 23.09.2017 in M.A.C case No.293/2013 whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs 8,83,760/along with 6% interest in favour of claimants. The Claimants have filed cross objection being S.B. Civil Cross objection No 130/2019 under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. Both the Appeal and the cross objections are being dealt together herein this order.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that claimants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jodhpur stating therein that on 27.03.2013 Ratan Ram the pillion rider and one Hanuman Ram were on a motor cycle with the registration No. RJ19SL 0173 and a bus with the registration No. RJ PA 5233 came from behind and hit the motorcycle resulting in an accident wherein Hanuman Ram died on spot and thereafter the other two were admitted in MDM hospital, Jodhpur and Ratna Ram also died on 01.04.2013. Moreover, the deceased was of the age 24 and was working as a mason with a monthly income of Rs 15000/-, the claimants sought total compensation of Rs 90,38,000/-.

¶30

Thereafter on receiving the notice of the claim petition reply was filed by Respondent No. 3 and 4 ie. the driver and the owner

[2024:RJ-JD:30101]

[XOBJC-130/2019]

(3 of 6)

of the vehicle and ex parte proceedings were initiated against respondent No.5 the wife of the deceased Ratna Ram. Furthermore the insurance company filed a reply to the claim petition and denied the averments of the claim petition and stated therein that at the time of the accident the vehicle was driven without the valid driving license.

¶35

Furthermore the learned Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants Surja Ram, Madan Lal and Rewat Singh were deposed as AW1-AW3 and on behalf of appellant Insurance Company Sumer Meena was examined as witness. Thereafter the learned Tribunal passed the award on 23.09.2017 whereby an amount of Rs 8,83,760/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants along with 6% interest from Respondent 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The appellant- Insurance company being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award dated 23.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Jodhpur has preferred this appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that service of notice upon respondent No.5 may be dispensed with. At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellant, service of notice upon respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company also submits that he has instructions that the appeal is not maintainable on the ground raised by the appellant-insurance company that the owner of the offending vehicle was plying the vehicle on a route qua which the permit was not there as the

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:30101]

[XOBJC-130/2019]

insurance company has taken a conscious decision of not giving challenge to such issue and thus, he submits that he does not want to press the appeal on this ground.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded future prospects @ 50% while considering the income of the deceased as Rs 7470/- and further submits that the claimants have not produced any document to prove the income of the deceased and have mentioned an exaggerated income of Rs 15000/- per month.

¶43

Learned counsel for the Claimants/Cross objector submits that the Aw-2 has clearly stated that the bus has hit the bike from behind which proves the negligence on behalf of the bus driver. He further submits that Hanuman Ram and Ratna Ram died on 27.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 respectively due to the negligence of the bus driver and also submits that FIR was filed against them and chargesheet was also filed under Section 279 and 304A of the IPC.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record.

¶45

This court finds that the learned Tribunal observed that one of the deceased was riding the bike on the correct side of the road and was riding carefully and not at a fast speed, however, the bus with the registration No. RJ 19 PA 5233 came from behind driving negligently hit the bike and thus, there was negligence on the part of the bus driver and thus Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

[2024:RJ-JD:30101]

[XOBJC-130/2019]

(5 of 6)

This court further finds that the learned Tribunal has observed that there is no evidence produced by the appellants regarding three persons sitting on the bike instead of two and AW2 Madanlal who is a credible witness, has clearly stated in his statements that only two of them were sitting on the bike when accident occurred and one Shravan Ram was standing nearby and was hit by the bus and suffered injuries and he was not on the bike when accident occurred.

¶50

This court further finds that the learned Tribunal observed that from the Exhibit-16 and Exhibit 17 it is evident that the front portion of the bus was damaged which was caused by hitting the bike during the accident. Furthermore the learned Tribunal observed that the road on which the accident occurred was broad enough however, the bus driver due to his negligence is responsible for the accident and chargesheet itself proves the negligence on behalf of the bus driver thus the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is apt and the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be dismissed.

¶51

This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal observed that the bus driver had the valid license which is proved by Exhibit No.2 and the vehicle was insured and that the violation of permit condition ie plying the vehicle beyond the prescribed area in the permit does not violate the policy condition, thus, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from paying the compensation to the claimants.

¶52

[XOBJC-130/2019]

¶53

[2024:RJ-JD:30101] (6 of 6)

¶54

In regards to the Cross objections filed by the cross objectors/claimants, this court finds that the learned Tribunal observed that there is no evidence on record provided by the claimants to prove that the income of the deceased was Rs 10,000 per month and thus the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of income as Rs 7470/- and moreover, he being a bachelor, 50 % deduction has been made thus, the final amount of compensation for loss of income is rightly granted as Rs 3,735/and the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation in other heads as well.

¶55

As per the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award dated 23.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jodhpur and thus, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶56

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as well as the instant civil cross objection petition are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶57

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶58

76-77-ajayS/-

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surja Ram @ Suja Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surja Ram @ Suja Ram 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

Smt.Bhawana Kumari and Ors. Vs Lakh Singh and Ors.

Indra Devi and Ors. Vs Lakh Singh and Anr.

National Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Indradevi and Ors.

Smt. Magdu Vs Hotel Shakunt

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Lalita and Ors.

Kurban Khan Vs State of Rajasthan