Advocates:
['R P VIJAY', 'SANJAY TYAGI', '', 'LOKESH SHARMA']

1

(1) S.B.Civil Restoration Application No. 653 of

2012

In

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2110/2004

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. SOHAN LAL

SHARMA AND ORS.

(2) S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2110/2004

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. SOHAN LAL

SHARMA AND ORS.

(3) S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 15 of 2005

In

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2110/2004

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. SOHAN LAL

SHARMA AND ORS.

---

24.9.2012

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Mr.R.P. Vijay for the the appellant insurance

company

Mr. Lokesh Sharma for the respondent claimants and

cross objector- claimants.

---

Heard learned counsel for the Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd.

(in short insurance

company) on the restoration application and the

application for condonation of delay made orally.

The office has pointed out that there is delay of

33 days in filing the restoration application. On

the oral submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the delay was occasioned on account

of bonafide mistake, his oral request is

reasonable. The delay in filing the restoration

application is condoned. On the basis of the

contents of the restoration application and the

affidavit, the restoration application is also

allowed. The appeal may be registered to its

original number. At the same time, the learned

counsel for the insurance company has requested

2

that the appeal and the cross objections filed by

the claimants may also be heard. His request is not

objected by Mr. Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel for

the claimants and cross objectors.

2. On the request of both the counsel, the appeal

and the cross objections are heard and disposed of

by this common order.

3. The insurance company has filed the appeal

against the award dated 26.7.2004 passed by the

Judge, Motor

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(Special Judge, Fake Currency matter) Jaipur City

Jaipur ( in short MACT) in Claim Case No.60/2004

whereby the claim petition filed by the

claimants was allowed and they were awarded

compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,72,000/-. After

service of notice, the claimants have also filed

cross objections which have been registered as

Cross Objections No. 15/2005. It will be proper

for this Court to decide the appeal and the cross

objections by this common order.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned

award and hence I am not repeating the same here

except wherever necessary.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.99

at about 2.30 p.m. deceased Kshitij, Smt. Priti

Sharma and Rajiv Sharma were standing in Sultan

Nagar turn near Gurjar Ki Thadi for getting the bus

to Tonk Fatak in Jaipur. A CTS Bus came and the

passengers started boarding the bus at that time

Truck No. RJA 6047 came with a speed and driven the

same with negligently hit deceased Kshitij on the

back side and crushed him and he died on account of

the injuries received by him. The deceased Kshitij

was a student of Class VII and he was member of

highly educated family. He was a brilliant student

3

and always participated in extra curricular

activities. His father Sohan Lal has passed B.Sc.

LL.M and a renowned advocate of this court and his

uncle Prem Kumar Sharma was also a renowned

advocate and his another uncle and aunti are

professors and all other family members are

educated and brilliant. An FIR was lodged and claim

petition was filed by the claimants. The notice on

the insurance company was served and insurance

company put in apperance. The respondents 3 and 4

(driver and owner of the truck) did not appear

before the MACT after service of notice and hence

exparte proceedings were taken against them. Today

neither the respondents 3 and 4 personally or

through lawyer put in appearance. After framing of

the issu