SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kela Devi, Wife of Late Shri Dala Ram @ Daluram and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2620 Of 2017
Decided On : 21-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.S. Choudhary.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Tribunal's award of compensation, affirming that negligence need not be proved in claims under Section 163A of the M.V. Act.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation awarded to claimants for death of infant in accident - Tribunal found negligence on part of offending vehicle - Insurance company's liability contested on grounds of policy violations - Court upheld Tribunal's findings, dismissing appeal. (Paras 1, 6, 14, 15)

(B) Negligence - Determination of negligence in motor accident cases - Court held that negligence need not be pleaded in claims under Section 163A - Claim petition maintained despite absence of driver as non-claimant. (Paras 15)

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

1. The appellant/non-claimant No.3 has preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 18.04.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.72/2013 (748/2014), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to the tune of Rs.2,29,500/- alongwith interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition and the liability was fastened upon all non-claimants jointly and severally.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 and 2/claimants filed claim petition under Sections 163A of the M.V. Act claiming compensation on account of death of Ramniwas, who was ten months of age at the time of accident and lost his life in an accident, which took place on 03.05.2012. In the claim petition, it was inter alia stated that on 03.05.2012 at about 02:45 pm, Kamla Devi was returning from Village Jakhan to her village, after getting vaccinated to her brother-in-law’s son, namely, Ram Niwas on a motorcycle (RJ-19-8M-2598), which was driven by Hukma Ram. When they reached near the agriculture land of Chimna Ram and Tejaram, a Bus (RJ-04-P-0377), which was plied by its driver rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle, as a result of which Smt. Kamla Devi and Ram Niwas, who was in the lap of Smt. Kamla, fell down and sustained injuries and later during the course of treatment, Ram Niwas died. The claimants, being the parents of Ram Niwas, an infant child of 10 months’ old, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,31,500/- from the non-claimants under various heads. An FIR of the accident was also lodged, wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver and owner of the Bus for offences under Sections 279, 337, 407 IPC & Section 134, 187, 66, 198A, 50 and 190 of the M.V. Act.

3. After service of the summons of the claim petition, the non-claimant No.1 (owner) filed reply to claim petition while denying the facts averred in the claim petition for want of knowledge. It was stated that there was no fault of driver of the offending Bus and the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured and the Bus was being plied under a valid and effective licence by its driver. A prayer was thus made for rejecting the claim petition qua non-claimant No.1.

4. On behalf of appellant/non-claimant No.3, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts averred therein. It was admitted by the insurance company that the vehicle in question was insured with it from 05.08.2011 to 04.08.2012. It was further stated that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of rider of motorcycle and, therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle. It was further stated that the insurance company was not apprised about the accident and further the offending vehicle was being plied without there being valid period. A prayer thus was made by the appellant insurance company for its exoneration.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to frame four issues. In support of the claim petition, the claimants examined Daluram, Kamla Devi and Hukmaram. In documentary evidence, 15 documents were exhibited by the claimants. On behalf of non-claimants, NAW.1 Pradeep and NAW.2 Premraj Khanna were examined and in documentary evidence Ex.14/A and 15/A were exhibited.

6. The learned Tribunal thereafter proceeded to hear arguments of the counsel for the parties and after considering the evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment and award dated 18.04.2017 proceeded to partly allow the claim petition filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/claimants and thereby awarded compensation of Rs.2,29,500/- along with interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of filing the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top