Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd vs Raju And Ors on 4 December, 2018
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1071/2018
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Legally
Constituted Authority, TP Claims Hub, Divisional Office, 537-B,
Bhansali Tower, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Lakharam S/o Laluram, By Caste Adivasi, R/o Rinchdi,
P.S. Salamgarh, District Pratapgarh
2. Shantilal S/o Shri Ramesh Maida, Resident Of Garh, P.S.
Danpur, Tehsil And District Banswara - Driver
3. Ramesh S/o Indermal Maida, Resident Of Garh, P.S.
Danpur, Tehsil And District Banswara - Owner
4. Kaluram Katara S/o Shri Lalaji Katara, Resident Of
Bachawara, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara - Owner
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1072/2018
The Oriental Insurance Comany Limited, through its Legally
Constituted Authority, TP Claims Hub, Divisional Office, 537-B,
Bhansali Tower, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mahesh S/o Sh. Valma Maida, By Caste Adivasi, R/o
Semla Kheda, P.S. Danpur, District Banswara
2. Shantilal S/o Shri Ramesh Maida, Resident Of Garh, P.S.
Danpur, Tehsil And District Banswara - Driver
3. Ramesh S/o Indermal Maida, Resident Of Garh, P.S.
Danpur, Tehsil And District Banswara - Owner
4. Kaluram Katara S/o Shri Lalaji Katara, Resident Of
Bachawara, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara. - Owner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1073/2018
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Legally
Constituted Authority, TP Claims Hub, Divisional Office, 537-B,
Bhansali Tower, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
(2 of 5) [CMA-1071/2018]
----Appellant
Versus
1. Raju S/o Mangu Ninama, By Caste Adivasi, R/o Semla
Kheda, P.S. Danpur, District Banswara
2. Shantilal S/o Shri Ramesh Maida, Resident Of Garh, P.S.
Danpur, Tehsil And District Banswara - Driver
3. Ramesh S/o Indermal Maida, Resident Of Garh, P.S.
Danpur, Tehsil And District Banswara - Owner
4. Kaluram Katara S/o Shri Lalaji Katara, Resident Of
Bachawara, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara. - Owner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1074/2018
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Legally
Constituted Authority, TP Claims Hub, Divisional Office, 537-B,
Bhansali Tower, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jeetmal S/o Dharji, By Caste Adivasi, R/o Semla Kheda,
P.S. Danpur, District Banswara
2. Shantilal S/o Shri Ramesh Maida, Resident Of Garh, P.S.
Danpur, Tehsil And District Banswara - Driver
3. Ramesh S/o Indermal Maida, Resident Of Garh, P.S.
Danpur, Tehsil And District Banswara - Owner
4. Kaluram Katara S/o Shri Lalaji Katara, Resident Of
Bachawara, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara. - Owner
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Judgment 04/12/2018 Application for dispensing with production of certified copy in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos.1072/2018, 1073/2018 & 1074/2018 is allowed.
(3 of 5) [CMA-1071/2018] As per office report, all these appeals are barred by limitation of 22 days and the appellant has made endeavour to seek condonation of delay by laying separate applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Although, normally, it is essential for the Court to exercise discretion for condonation of delay after serving notice to the opposite party, but considering a very significant fact that in all these cases applications for condonation of delay are containing good and sufficient reasons and delay is of a shorter duration, Court feels inclined to accept the applications.
Accordingly, keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of all these matters, which are arising out of the same impugned judgment and award, delay in filing of the appeals is condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
By all these appeals, appellant insurer has challenged common judgment and award dated 10th of October, 2017, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, adjudicated four claim cases of the claimants, who suffered injuries in a road accident involving vehicle Jeep No. RJ-03-TA- 0137, which was insured with the appellant insurer.
The accident occurred on 22nd of May, 2010 at about 7 PM as the insured vehicle hit the motorcycle of respondent-claimant Lakharam, who was riding his own motorcycle, and also the motorcycles of other claimants. The accident, eventually, resulted in grave and serious injuries to all the four claimants.
(4 of 5) [CMA-1071/2018] At the behest of claimants, separate claim petitions were filed, which were clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment and award. The learned Tribunal decided crucial issue of rash and negligent driving against the insured vehicle and in favour of respondent-claimants. While adverting to the issue relating to quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal partly decided the said issue in favour of respondent-claimants and under different heads awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,45,329 to respondent-claimant Lakharam, Rs.2,03,112 to claimant Mahesh, Rs.191,112 to claimant Raju, and Rs.2,05,326 to respondent-claimant Jeetmal. On the basis of objection raised by the appellant-insurer in written statements for absolving it from liability to pay compensation on the anvil of violation of terms of the insurance policy, learned Tribunal framed issue No.3 and after discussing the evidence threadbare and relying on authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court, in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 14 SCC 663], has decided the same against appellant-insurer.
Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and award, which is essentially based on the judgment rendered by Larger Bench of Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra), in my opinion, the findings and conclusions recorded by learned Tribunal on issue No.3 cannot be faulted and consequently the same requires no interference by this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that said question is referred for reconsideration by yet another Larger Bench, cannot furnish a ground to the appellant insurer so as to impress upon the Court to take a different view. It is trite that mere making reference to a Larger (5 of 5) [CMA-1071/2018] Bench cannot have any effect on the binding precedent and the same has to hold the field.
Supreme Court in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saju P. Paul & Anr. [(2013) 2 SCC 41], while examining the said issue, observed:
"The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in Baljit Kaur and Challa Upendra Rao should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case".
In view of above discussion, no case for interference with the impugned award is made out and consequently all these appeals fail and are hereby rejected.
(P.K. LOHRA),J 64-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)