AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment/award dated 29.09.2012
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, District Jaipur (for short ""the Tribunal"") to quash and set aside the said impugned
judgment/award.
Brief facts of the appeal are that claimants-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a claim petition on 06.08.2011 before the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kotputali, District Jaipur. In the claim petition, they stated that deceased Babulal was driver of Trolla No. HR-47-A-4968 at the time of
accident and he was on the way from Bhiwadi to Nimbaheda. About 5.00 AM near Nyara Nadi Hotel Roop-pura, he parked his vehicle and started to
check tyre of the vehicle. At the spur of moment, a Container No.HR-38-R- 0977 came from Ajmer side being driven by Arsad with rash and
negligently and hit the Trolla and therefore deceased Babulal came underneath the tyre of the vehicle. As a result, he succumbed to death. Upon this,
an FIR No. 156/2009 was registered at Police Station Bhinai. In the claim petition, deceased Babulal was stated to be 25 years old. He was earning
Rs. 11,500/- per month as a salary and apart from it, he was also an agriculturist. So, compensation of Rs.1,38,33,000/- may be awarded.
In reply, Non-claimant respondent No.4 stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent of the driver itself. So, the claim petition be
rejected.
The appellant ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition and filed reply in which it was stated that the accident
took place due to sole negligence of deceased, himself. He did not inform about the incident. Deceased Babulal did not have any valid and effective
license. So, the claim petition be dismissed.
On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues :
1- ..-38 0977 1 29.7.09
2.
1 2
3
4.
/ -
- - 5.
On behalf of the claimants - three witnesses, namely Dhapali (AW-1), Lal Chand (AW-2) and Rakesh (AW-3) were examined and exhibited 18
documents; whereas Ashok Kumar Sharma (NA-1) Rakesh (NA-2) and J.P. Agarwal (NA-3) were examined on behalf of the appellant - Insurance
Company.
Learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment/award dated 29.9.2012 partially allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 and
awarded compensation of Rs.9,27,900/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment/award dated 29.09.2012 is arbitrary and contrary to the facts of the case.
So, it is liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that the respondent No.3, Arsad did not have valid and effective license at the time of
incident. The driving license so produced by him, was forged one. He further submitted that they had produced the report of the Divisional Transport
Authority, Agra dated 20.12.2011 before the learned Tribunal. The said report marked as NA-1 and was proved by S/Shri Ashok Kumar and J.P.
Agarwal in their evidence. The respondents had not proved the verification report (Ex. NA-4).
The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the incident was occurred only the sole negligence by the driver. No eye witness was
examined by the claimants before the learned Tribunal. He also further submitted that the learned Tribunal had committed illegality while determining
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- PM applying the minimum wage applicable on January, 2011 while the alleged accident was occurred
in the year 2009. So, the impugned judgment/award be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the learned Tribunal had not committed any illegality in awarding
the compensation. He further submitted that during trial, the appellant had not proved that Arsad did not have valid and effective license. Witnesses of
the appellant failed to prove the report (Ex. NA-1). He further submitted that during trial before the learned Tribunal, they had produced verification
report (Ex. NA-4). That verification report very well proved that the driver Arsad had the valid and effective license at the time of accident.
The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation had rightly considered the
minimum wage of Rs.7,500/- PM. Therefore, the appeal be dismissed.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the impugned judgment/award and the material
available on record.
It is an admitted position that the appellant had to prove that at the time of incident, Arsad did not have valid and effective license. The appellant in
the evidence produced report (Ex. NA-1) but witnesses of the appellant failed to prove the said report. During evidence, respondents exhibited the
document (NA-4) that proves that Arsad had effective and valid license at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal in its judgment/award clearly
stated that the appellant failed to prove the license of Arsad was forged one. Conclusion of the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and
infirmity. So, the appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
Therefore, the present civil miscellaneous appeal as well as stay application is dismissed.