Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt Mamta Devi And Ors on 31 October, 2013
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3326/2013 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Mamta Devi & ors. Date of Order : 31st October, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. T.P. Sharma, for the appellant. United India Insurance Company Ltd. is aggrieved by the award dated 16.07.2013 passed by the Civil Judge and Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 30,38,084/- to the claimants/respondents.
2. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that Smt. Mamta Devi, respondent no.1, the wife of the deceased in her testimony has claimed that she would be entitle to pension of Rs. 3,000/-. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the said amount should have been deducted by the learned Tribunal while calculating the loss of dependency.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award.
4. A bare perusal of the award clearly reveals that at the time of final arguments before the learned Tribunal, Insurance Company had raised the following contentions-
Firstly that there is a delay of one day in lodging the FIR. Therefore, this clearly shows that a false claim has been filed by the claimants. Secondly, that at the time of alleged accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid license. Thirdly, the accident had occurred due to the negligence of Rajendra Kumar (deceased) himself. Therefore, the case is of contributory negligence. Except these contentions, no contention was ever raised by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal. Thus, the Insurance Company did not raise the contention that Smt. Mamta Devi would be receiving pension of Rs. 3,000/-. Thus, the said amount should be deduced while calculating the loss of dependency.
5. Hence, at the appellate stage a fresh plea has been raised that, too, based on fact. However, it is a settled position of law that fresh plea cannot be raised at the appellate stage on factual matrix. If a plea had to be raised, it should have been raised by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal. Hence, the said plea cannot be entertained by this Court at this stage.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that with regard to three contentions raised by the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons for dismissing the contentions.
7. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. Thus, being devoid of any merit, the appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.S. Chauhan),J.
Mak/-
406All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Anil Makawana Jr. P.