Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Nemichand S/o Gheesa Karar – Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3245 of 2017, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3240 of 2017,
S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 119 of 2020
Decided on : 06-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Nahar, Mr. S.K. Sankhala.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that delays in FIR filing do not absolve liability if negligence is proven, and compensation should reflect the severity of injuries.
Headnote:
Liability - Motor Accident Claims - Limitation Act - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on compensation, interpreting the Limitation Act's provisions on delay in filing claims and the necessity of evidence in establishing liability.
Fact of the Case:
Claimants filed for compensation after being injured in a motorcycle accident caused by a negligent driver. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which the insurance company appealed, contesting liability and the delay in filing the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the insurance company's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision and the adequacy of the compensation awarded, while condoning the delay in the claimant's cross-objection.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the FIR affected the liability of the insurance company and the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the primary concern of injured parties is to seek medical treatment, and delays in FIR filing do not negate liability if negligence is established.
Result: The misc. appeals and cross-objections are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant/non-claimant No.2, has preferred two misc. appeals being CMA No.3245/2017 and 3240/2017, assailing the validity of judgment and award dated 04.09.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case Nos.1291/2013 and 1289/2013 respectively. The learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs.87,800/- in MAC Case No.1291/2013 and Rs.2,89,257/- in MAC Case No.1289/2013 along with interest @ 6% per annum. The learned Tribunal held both the non-claimants i.e. appellant and owner of the offending vehicle liable to pay the compensation.
2. Claimant Nemichand, after being served with the notices of the instant appealm filed cross objection on 24.09.2018 with a delay of 128 days with the prayer to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and to enhance the compensation. Along with the cross-objection, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay has also been filed.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants, namely, Nemichand and Devraj filed claim petitions, claiming compensation against the non-claimants for the injuries suffered by them in the accident. It was inter-alia alleged in the claim petitions that on 16.05.2013 the claimants were going by motorcycle, they were hit by a jeep (RJE-5784), which was being plied by its driver rashly and negligently. The claimants sustained grievous injuries and remained hospitalized. The incident was report to the police, upon which FIR was registered, wherein after conducting investigation, charge sheet was filed against non-claimant No.1. Claimant- Nemichand claimed compensation of Rs.14,76,000/-, whereas claimant Devraj claimed compensation of Rs.20,68,000/-.
4. The claim petitions were contested by the non-claimants by filing their replies. The appellant/non-claimant No.2 filed its reply while admitting the fact that the at the relevant point of time, the jeep was insured with it, however, other averments made in the claim petitions were denied. It was alleged that the rider of the motorcycle himself was negligent in plying its motorcycle. Objection with regard to driver of offending jeep not having a valid and effective licence was taken. Apart from this, objection with regard to delay in lodging the FIR was also taken by the appellant/ non-claimant No.3.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. The parties led their respective evidence, oral as well as documentary.
6. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments made by respective parties and considering the material produced by the parties vide judgment and award dated 04.09.2017 partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation in favour of claimants, as mentioned above while fastening the liability upon the non-claimants, jointly and severally.
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while admitting the appeals preferred by the appellant insurance company vide order dated 08.01.2018 stayed the execution of the impugned judgment and award dated 04.09.2017 qua the appellant insurance company.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/non-claimant No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has not considered the arguments raised and evidence led by the appellant/non-claimant No.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the accident took place on 16.05.2013, however, FIR of the accident was lodged with unexplained delay of 18 days. He further submits that in the FIR, the name of the driver of offending jeep was mentioned as ‘Dilkhush S/o Madanlal Bairagi’, however, the investigation of the FIR resulted in filing of a charge sheet against Madanlal (non-claimant No.1), who is the father of said Dilkhush. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the name of Madan Lal implicating him as driver of the vehicle was shown later without there being any reason for the s
