Dismissed

Sita Ram v. Rameshwar Lal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2024XOBJC/28/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal's award. The Court upheld the findings that delayed FIR lodging was excusable and the compensation calculated based on proven income and disability percentage was adequate.

What did the court decide?

Misc. Appeal and Cross Objection dismissed; compensation awarded by Tribunal to be disbursed within six months.

Sita Ram Vs Rameshwar Lal and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1686/2015

¶5

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Manager, Jai Shiv Chowk, Station Road Makrana, District Nagaur. Regional Office at Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur through authorized signatory of United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office at Jodhpur.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sita Ram Chouhan S/o Puranmal, Resident of village Post Jiliya Via Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nava, District Nagaur. (claimant)

¶9

Rameshwar Lal S/o Shri Harzi Ram, Resident of Village Basroli Via Gachipura, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur Raj. (Owner Mini Truck No. RJ-37-GA-0139)

¶10

Chothu Ram S/o Shri Harzi Ram, Resident of Village Basroli Via Gachipura, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur Raj. (Driver Mini Truck No. RJ-37-GA-0139)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 28/2018

¶14

Sita Ram Chouhan S/o Shri Puranmal, aged about 30 years, Resident of Post Jiliya Via Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nava, District Nagaur Raj.

¶15

----Appellant

¶16

Versus

¶17

Rameshwar Lal S/o Shri Harzi Ram, Resident of Village Basroli Via Gachipura, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur Raj. (Owner Mini Truck No. RJ-37-GA-0139)

¶18

Chothu Ram S/o Shri Harzi Ram, Resident of Village Basroli Via Gachipura, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur Raj. (Driver Mini Truck No. RJ-37-GA-0139)

¶19

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Manager, Jai Shiv Chowk, Station Road Makrana, District Nagaur. Regional Office at Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur. At present United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1^st Floor, 74-A, Bhati-

(2 of 10)

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

[CMA-1686/2015]

N-Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur. (Insurer Mini Truck No. RJ-37-GA-0139)

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Sankhla, R-1/claimant.

¶26

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶27

Judgment

¶28

11/07/2024

¶29

This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 02.06.2015 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Parbatsar, District Nagaur (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.33/2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,96,321/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of claimant/cross-objector for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the appellant/non-claimant No.3.

¶30

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimant, Sitaram Chouhan filed a claim petition on 18.02.2012 claiming compensation of Rs.39,57,000/- alleging therein that on 07.01.2012 while the claimant was going on his motorcycle (RJ21-5M-1355) with pillion rider Mewaram from Jiliya to Karkedi, when the driver/non-claimant No.2 of the offending vehicle (Mini Truck No.RJ-37-GA-0139) while plying the vehicle rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said mini truck. At the

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

[CMA-1686/2015]

(3 of 10)

time of accident, the vehicle was insured with appellant/nonclaimant No.3 and non-claimant No.1 was the registered owner of the vehicle. The claimant on account of injuries received by him in the accident filed claim petition claiming compensation to tune of Rs.39,57,000/-. An FIR of the said accident was also lodged on 10.01.2012 against the driver of the mini truck for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 134/187 of M.V. Act, wherein after investigation charge sheet was filed against the driver (Ex.3) in the competent court.

¶35

On receipt of the summons of the claim petition, nonclaimant No.1/registered owner of the offending vehicle filed reply while refuting the claim laid. It was averred by the non-claimant No.1 that a false claim has been laid and no accident in fact had taken place. It was further averred that the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective licence and at the time of accident the vehicle was registered with non-claimant No.3. 4. On behalf of non-claimant No.2/driver of the offending vehicle, it was alleged that no accident had taken place and false claim petition was filed and a prayer for dismissing the claim petition was made. On behalf of appellant/non-claimant No.3, the facts stated in the claim petition were denied. In the reply, it was urged on behalf of appellant that the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability. It was admitted by the insurance company that on the relevant day, the vehicle was insured with it, however, involvement of the vehicle in question was questioned. An objection with regard to driving of the offending vehicle not having valid and effective licence was also taken and it was averred that the accident took place due to negligence of the

(4 of 10)

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

[CMA-1686/2015]

claimant himself. A prayer for rejection of the claim petition was made.

¶40

As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to frame five issues including relief, which inter-alia reads as under:

¶41

“1- vk;k fnukad 07-07-2012 dks okgu la[;k vkj-ts- 37 th, 0139 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 2 us okgu dk rst xfr ,oa vlko/kkuh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh] ftlds dkj.k izkFkhZ lhrkjke ds pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ\

¶42

2- vk;k foi{kh la[;k&02 okgu pkyd foi{kh la[;k&1 okgu Lokeh ds fu;kstu esa dk;Z dj jgk Fkk vkSj blh fu;kstudky esa mDr nq/kZVuk dkfjr gqbZ gS\

¶43

3- vk;k foi{khx.k dh vksj izLrqr izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo’ks”k fooj.k esa vafdr rF;ksa dk D;k izHkko gS\

¶44

4- vk;k izkFkhZ] foi{khx.k ls 39]57]000@& :i;s izfrdj ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] vkSj ;fn gS rks fdl fdl foi{kh ls vkSj fdruh fdruh jkf’k\

¶45

5- vuqrks”k\”

¶46

The claimant, in support of his claim, in oral evidence examined himself as AW.1 and in documentary evidence 78 documents were exhibited. The non-claimant No.3/appellant herein examined NAW.1 Anand K.S. Rana and in documentary evidence, 6 documents were exhibited.

¶47

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence by the respective parties, proceeded to partly allow the claim petition preferred by the claimant and awarded compensation to tune of Rs.1,96,321/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. and the liability of paying the compensation was fastened upon the insurance company i.e. appellant/non-claimant No.3.

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

[CMA-1686/2015]

(5 of 10)

Being aggrieved by impugned judgment and award dated 02.06.2015, the appellant/non-claimant No.3 has preferred the instant appeal.

¶52

While admitting the misc. appeal, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted an interim order on 02.09.2015 to the effect that if the appellant deposits a lump sum Rs.75,000/-, the rest of the award passed by the trial court shall remain stayed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that although the accident had taken place on 07.01.2012, however, the FIR of the accident was lodged after a delay of three days, which unexplained delay in lodging the FIR was fatal and, therefore, involvement of the vehicle in the accident was not proved beyond all shadows of doubt. He further submitted that although the police reached at the place of accident, however, the vehicle number of the offending vehicle were not disclosed to the police personnel by the claimant. It was further submitted that two witnesses, namely, Roopa Ram and Gopal were cited, however, they were not examined before the learned Tribunal, this makes the entire version of the claimant concocted. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the compensation awarded to the claimant is also excessive, as mandatory provisions of law have not been followed by the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation in favour of claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in absence of producing document fortifying the permanent disability being sustained to the claimant, the compensation awarded which is on higher side, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

[CMA-1686/2015]

(6 of 10)

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ claimant/cross-objector submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant/non-claimant No.3 deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that although Issue No.4 has been decided in favour of claimant, however, the compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced as a very meager compensation has been awarded. Learned counsel for the claimant/cross-objector submitted that the claimant sustained fracture of scapula of left shoulder and fracture of 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th ribs of left side and fracture of left forearm and he remained hospitalized for long time and after being discharged, remained under treatment for quite long time. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant sustained 15% permanent disability, which was proved by the claimant by exhibiting Ex.14, however, the same has not been considered by the learned Tribunal and for the aforesaid injuries suffered by the claimant, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that no compensation with regard to future prospectus has been awarded while simply observing that the claimant was not in permanent employment. Learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 6% is also on lower side and in view of various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, the interest deserves to be enhanced at least @ 15%.

¶57

In rejoinder to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in lodging of the FIR, which was fatal to the claimant, learned counsel for the claimant/cross-

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

[CMA-1686/2015]

(7 of 10)

objector while relying upon judgments passed in Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.1926 of 2011 decided on 18.02.2011] : 2011 (4) SCC 693 and in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. : SLP (Civil) No.280/2006 decided on 15.04.2019 submitted that in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge, it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. Thus, delay in lodging the FIR, cannot be a reason enough so as not to grant compensation.

¶62

Learned counsel for the claimant while relying upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jayarani & Anr. v. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. : Civil Appeal No.4310-4311 of 2023 decided on 10.07.2023, submitted that considering the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/-, 40% of the income i.e. 4,800/- was required to be added towards future prospects, however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the said aspect and no amount has been awarded towards future prospects.

¶63

Learned counsel for the claimant/cross-objector thus prayed that the misc. appeal preferred by the insurance company be dismissed and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶64

Despite service upon respondents No.2 and 3 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle), no body is present.

¶65

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

[CMA-1686/2015]

(8 of 10)

This Court finds that the learned Tribunal after considering the material available before it has found that the claimant furnished enough reason while explaining the delay occasioned in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as on account of injuries suffered by the claimant immediately the FIR was not lodged and after getting cured from the injuries after being treated by the doctor, the FIR was lodged and thus the claimant was prevented from filing the FIR immediately. In the considered opinion of this Court in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Ravi and Bimla Devi (supra), the delay in lodging FIR cannot be reason enough to deny compensation to the claimant for the injuries suffered by him. The relevant discussion made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi ( supra ) reads as under:

¶70

“20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.

(9 of 10)

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

[CMA-1686/2015]

The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.”

¶75

This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4000/-, inasmuch as the claimant has not placed anything on record to prove that the claimant was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and thus considering the permanent disability sustained by the claimant to the extent of 15%, has rightly awarded compensation towards loss of income and while applying the multiplier of 18 has awarded Rs.1,29,600/- while taking into consideration the monthly to be Rs.4000/-. In the opinion of this Court, the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal determining compensation towards future prospects is just and proper and the same do not call for any enhancement. This Court also finds that since the claimant was not employed in some permanent employment, and even otherwise the claimant has failed to prove that he was employed as a permanent employee, therefore, the

[2024:RJ-JD:28362]

[CMA-1686/2015]

(10 of 10)

Tribunal has rightly denied compensation under the head of future prospects. This Court finds that for injuries suffered by the claimant, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/and for special diet and the mental agony suffered by the claimant a sum of Rs.7000/- has been awarded, which this Court also considered adequate.

¶80

In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence led by the respective and after perusing the record, has awarded adequate compensation in favour of claimant for the injuries suffered by him and the same calls for no interference/enhancement by this Court. The compensation amount withheld under the interim orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court be disbursed to the claimant, as already determined by the learned Tribunal, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶81

Consequently, the misc. appeal filed by the appellant insurance company and the cross objection filed by the claimant are dismissed.

¶82

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶83

173 & 174-DJ/-

Sita Ram v. Rameshwar Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram v. Rameshwar Lal 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

Smt. Kamala @ Jhamaku and Ors. Vs Pukhraj Deshantari and Ors.

Union of India Vs M/S Seema Enterprises

Ramchandra Sharma Vs Smt. Munni

United India Insurance Company Vs Smt. Jamna Devi and Ors.

Kashmir Singh Vs Vimla Devi and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar @ Doctor @ Babbu Vs State of Rajasthan