At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
For the Appellants: Anil Jain, Advocate. For the Respondents: Virendra Agrawal, Advocate.
1. Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed against the judgement and award dated 6.3.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur ('the learned Tribunal' for short hereinafter) in MAC No. 563/2004 whereby he allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants.
Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal mentioning therein that on 8
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
1.2002 at about 6-7 P.M deceased Umrav was coming through tractor No. RJ-11/R5/127 after loading begs of mustard. The driver Kaptan Singh was driving the tractor in Village Bagcholi, due to rash and negligent driving. In the said accident Umrav singh died on spot. Regarding this incident an FIR No. 16/2002 was registered at Police Station Maniya. Thus, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.22,65,000/-.2. Thereafter, notices were issued. Reply to the claim petition was filed before the learned Claims Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal framed the issues.3. The learned Tribunal after hearing passed the impugned judgement and award. The appellant/s aggrieved with the impugned judgement and award has preferred instant appeal before this Court.4. Counsel for the appellants non-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in directing the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner in which it has not been proved by the insurance company that the vehicle was plying for commercial purpose. Counsel has further submitted that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company at the time of said accident and it was the duty of the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant because the insurance company has charged the premium from the owner for this purpose. Counsel has further submitted that the Insurance company has not produced any evidence in this respect that the said tractor was plying for the commercial purpose on the day of accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is on mistaken to pass an award for compensation and to recover this amount from the owner. Counsel has further submitted that the tribunal has not considered and appreciated this fact of the case that the said tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and on the day of accident it was carrying the begs of mustered of the appellants/owner from the agricultural field of the appellants. This act comes in the purview of the agricultural purpose. Counsel has submitted that the deceased was the labourer and was engaged for loading and unloading the begs of mustered. Therefore, the observations to give the right to recover the amount of compensation to the insurance company from owner is wrong and illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. Thus the impugned judgement /award passed by the learned tribunal is illegal, perverse and against the settled principles of law and against the material available on record. In support of his submission, counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Jabalpur v. Rainki Bai & Others, 1998(1) TAC 198(MP).5. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company has opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award and requires no interference of this Court. In support of his case, counsel has placed reliance on following judgements:1. New India Assurance co. Ltd.v. Vedwati & Ors., MACD 2007(1) SC 265;2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Brij Mohan & Ors., MACD 2007(1) SC 541; and3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Charan & Ors., (2012) 1 CCR (Raj.) 594;6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me including the above judgements .7. From a perusal of the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Tribunal it is clear that the learned tribunal while passing the impugned judgement and award has considered each and every aspect of the matter, thus requires no interference of this Court. However, the judgement cited by the counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case.8. In the result this civil misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgement and award dated 6.3.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur in MAC No. 563/2004 is affirmed.Appeal Dismissed.
"2017 (2) WLN 319,"