Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Kiran Joshi And Others And Others

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No.185 of 2019, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the respondent no.1/claimant for compensation to the tune of Rs.51,19,192/- against the Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited (appellant herein).

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent no.1/claimant filed the Motor Accident Claim Petition for the compensation for the death of her husband Prakash Joshi in the accident by the vehicle Canter No.UK06CB 4326 with the vehicle of the respondent no.8/owner being driven by him. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that it was a case of contributory negligence and the accident was occurred due to own negligence of the respondent no.8/owner while driving the case.

He would draw the attention of the Court to Para 20 of the impugned Award and would submit that the arguments were addressed by the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company before the tribunal to the fact that DW1 Rakesh Singh, driver of the offending canter has stated in examination-in-chief that when he was driving his vehicle and reached near Bhagwati Filling Station then the Swift Car which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit his Canter from front.

He would further submit that as per the statement of DW1 Rakesh Singh it was a head-on collision and therefore the negligence of respondent no.8/owner is proved.

In view of the above submission of the counsel for the appellant/insurance company, the Court perused the impugned Award. The Tribunal in subsequent para 21 of the judgment specifically stated that DW1 in his cross examination admitted that paper No.36C/7 is the site plan of the place of the occurrence of the accident and it shows the correct movement of vehicles. It is further observed by the Tribunal that the site plan clearly mentions the place of occurrence and on perusal of the same it reveals that the Car No.UK06Y 4488 was coming from Sitarganj towards Khatima and the offending vehicle canter No.UK06CB 4326 which was coming from Khatima towards Sitarganj left his side and hit the car which was coming from the right side, therefore, respondent no.8 was not guilty of contributory negligence in the cause of the accident.

In the considered view of this Court, the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is correct and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore does not call for any interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine.