HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1666/2010

Bajaj Allianz Genaral Insurance Company Ltd., having its

registered Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yarawada, Pune –

411 006 and having its Regional Office at O-12 A, Ashok Marg,

C- Scheme, Jaipur through its Constituent Attorney

----Non-Claimant/Appellant

Versus

1. Karibai @ Kiranbai aged about 26 years, W/o late Mahaveer

2. Aman aged about 6 years, S/o late Mahaveer being Minor

through his natural guardian and mother Karibai @ Kiranbai W/o

late Mahaveer

3. Gorilal, aged about 48 years S/o Gyarsi Ram

4. Basanti Bai aged about 45 years W/o Gorilal

All R/o Balapura Bhabhuka, Tehsil Kishanganj, Distt. Baran

--Respondents/Claimants

5. Giriraj Nayak s/o Prahalad Nayak, R/o Badgaon, Tehsil Anta,

Distt. Baran, Presently R/o Near Ramdwara, Baran (Driver)

6. Kailash Paras S/o Gopallal, R/o Jagjeevanram Colony, Baran,

Distt. Baran (Owner)

----Non-Claimants/Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Virendra Agarwal

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sanjay Singhal with

Mr. Saddik Ahmed

Mr. Akhilesh Pareek

Mr. J.P. Gupta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

17/05/2022

Instant appeal has been directed against the judgment and

award dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Baran (Raj.) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC case No.

159/2007 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed

(2 of 8)

[CMA-1666/2010]

by the claimants-respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.

8,71,328/- as compensation in favour of the claimants-

respondents.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and

award dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-

Insurance Company has submitted this appeal on the following

ground inter alia that the accident occurred on 26.09.2007 with a

trailer/trolley which was not insured with the appellant-Insurance

Company.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

submitted that in FIR itself i.e. Ex.1, it is the admitted case that

the incident has occurred by striking of the motorcycle with the

trailer/trolley which was standing five feet away from the divider.

Counsel further submitted that the site plan (Ex.3) indicates that

the trolley was standing five feet away from the divider and there

is no mention about the number of the tractor. Counsel further

submitted that when the accident occurred a notice under Section

133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’)

was given to the registered owner of the vehicle who has also

admitted in his reply (Ex.4) that driver Giriraj informed him that

the tyre of the tractor was burst and after leaving the trolley on

the spot, he went in tractor to get the tyre repaired. Counsel

further submitted that since the deceased and the informant are

Police personnel, so in connivance with the Police after four days

of the incident i.e. on 30.09.2007, the tractor was seized and the

tractor was wrongly involved to get compensation. Counsel further

submitted that even charge-sheet was not submitted against the

driver of the vehicle for the offence under Section 279 IPC and no

notice under Section 134 of the Act of 1988 was given to the

(3 of 8)

[CMA-1666/2010]

driver, so all these situations create doubt about the involvement

of the tractor in the incident which occurred on 26.09.2007.

Counsel further submitted that the deceased was a Police

Constable and he was supposed to act in accordance with law, but

he was not keeping proper distance as per the road traffic rules

and he himself was responsible for the incident.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has

placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs.

Premlata Shukla & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 RLW (Raj.)

3394 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held