Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 423
Rajasthan High Court
Jaipur Bench
Suneeta Agrawal Vs. National Insurance Co. (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Suneeta Agrawal (Smt.)
Versus
National Insurance Co. & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4245 to 2012, decided on 29.04.2015
B.C. Rawat, for Claimants;
Vizzy Agarwal, for Insurance Co.;
Sandeep Mathur, for Cross Objector
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 166 — Enhancement of compensation — Rash and negligent driving of a truck — Hit the car — Death of two persons and sustaining grievous injuries by one person in the accident — Contention that insurance policy obtained by non-disclosure of material facts — Tribunal fastened liability upon Insurance Company to pay quantum of compensation to claimants and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle upon dishonour of cheque, the Insurance Company cancelled the cover note but its intimation was not given to the owner and R.T.O. — Held — The tribunal was just and right in awarding compensation. (Paras 10 to 12)
Appeals and Cross objection dismissed.
eksVj;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 166 & izfrdj dh vfHko`f) & Vªd dks mrkoysiu o ykijokgh ls pykuk & dkj dks VDdj ekjh & nks tuksa dh ekSr o ,d tus dks xaHkhj {kfr dkfjr gqbZ & ;g izfrdkj fd rkfRod rF;ksa dks [kqyklk ugha djrs gq, chek ikWfylh gkfly dh & vf/kdj.k us nkokdrkZvksa dks izfrdj dk lank; djus dk nkf;Ro chek dEiuh ij Mkyk vkSj fQj mldh olwyh vkfyIr ;ku ds Lokeh ls dh tkos & pSd ds vuknfjr gksus ij chek dEiuh us ^doj uksV* fujLr fd;k ysfdu bldh lwpuk ;ku Lokeh vkSj vkj-Vh-vks- dks ugha nh xbZ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & izfrdj iznku djus esa vf/kdj.k U;k;ksfpr o lgh FkhA ¼in la[;k 10 ls 12½
vihysa ,oa ØkWl vkWCtsD'ku [kkfjt fd;sA
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and delay in filing the cross objections is hereby condoned.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard and since all these appeals and cross objections relate to one incident and arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, they are being decided finally at this stage, by this common judgment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.4.2000, Manohar Jasnani, Ravi @ Ravindra Agarwal and Anil Agarwal were going from Jaipur to Tonk in Car No. RJ 14 C 4096. No sooner did they reach 4 kms. ahead of Motuka Baroni Police Station towards Tonk, suddenly a truck No. RJ 02 G 2884 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the car, as a result of which Ravi Agarwal and Manohar Lal Jasnani Succumbed to injuries and Anil Agarwal sustained grievous injuries and Maruti Car was also severely damaged.
4. Thereafter the claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of deceased Manohar Lal Jasnani and Ravi Agarwal, and Anil Agarwal himself on account of injuries sustained by him and one claim petition was filed on account of damage of Maruti Car in the said accident. Notices were issued; reply was filed; certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment and award dated 7th August, 2010, whereby it decreed Rs. 6,55,000/- as compensation in claim petition No. 229/2004 (Smt. Meena Jasnani & Ors. vs. M/s. R.K. Minerals & Ors.); Rs. 7,22,000/- as compensation in claim petition No. 230/2004 (Smt. Sunita Agarwal & Ors. vs. M/s. R.K. Minerals & Ors.), Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation in claim petition No. 232/2004 (Anil Kumar Agarwal vs. M/s. R.K. Minerals & Ors.); and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in claim petition No. 231/2004 (Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. M/s. R.K. Minerals & Ors.). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Insurance Co. filed Civil Misc. Appeals before this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 18.8.2011 while setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh qua issues No. 3 & 4. Pursuant thereto, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award dated 3.9.2012, decreeing an amount of Rs. 8,17,610/- as compensation in favour of claimants Meena Jasnani & Ors. in claim petition No. 229/2004; Rs. 9,15,477/- as compensation in favour of claimants Sunita Agarwal and Others in claim petition No. 230/2000; Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in favour of claimant Sunita Agarwal in claim petition No. 231/2004 on account of damage of Maruti Car; and Rs 4,54,332/- as compensation in favour of claimant Anil Kumar in claim petition No. 232/2004 on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident, but the liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Co. to pay the quantum of compensation to the claimants and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
5. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, four appeals have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation; and being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, four appeals have been filed by the Insurance Co. and three cross objections have been filed by the non claimant-cross objector.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has contended that in the Motor Vehicles Act there is a provision that if the Insurance Policy is obtained on account of non-disclosure of a material fact or by representation of a fact which is false in some material particulars, the policy would be treated to be void and Insurer would not be liable under such policy. In the instant case, the insurance of the truck in question was obtained by Rais Khan by concealing the material facts and by giving false statement, as such in view of the provisions of Sectio
