Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
I C I Ci Lombard General Insurance Co Lt vs Smt Shanti Devi And Others on 18 November, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.
J U D G M E N T
S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2264/2013
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., through
Manager, Branch Office, Bhagwati Bhawan, Near
Government Hostel Circle, M.I. Road, Jaipur.
......Appellant/Non-applicant No. 3
Versus
1. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Ramdhan
Sharma, aged about 63 years (Wife of the
deceased).
2. Yogesh Sharma son of Late Shri Ramdhan Sharma
aged about 37 years (Son of the deceased)
All by caste Brahamin, Resident of 11B,
Shankar Vatika, Near Varun Vihar, Meena
Paladi, Agra Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
......Respondents/ Claimants
3. Vishnu Singh Son of Ram Singh, by Caste Rajput, Resident of House No. 64, Thakuro ki Dhani, Tan Mohanpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Driver of Car No. GJ 3 CI 9282) ......Respondent/ Non-Applicant No. 1
4. Vipul Bhai Son of Purshottam Bhai, Resident of Kishan Estron Society, Block No. 68, Rajkot, District Rajkot, Gujrat. (Registered Case No. GJ 3 CI 9282) ......Respondent/ Non-Applicant No.2 18.11.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. C.S. Jodha for the appellant/s Mr. Satish Khandal for respondents No. 1 and 2 Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award under appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/s filed claim petition before the
learned Claims Tribunal claiming compensation.
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.
The learned Tribunal after hearing passed the impugned judgment and award. The
appellant/s aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award has preferred instant appeal before this Court.
Counsel for the appellant/s has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in not considering the facts of the case, material and evidence available on record and the grounds taken in the instant civil misc. appeal. Thus the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/s has opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has not considered the facts of the case, evidence available on record. Thus, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal be modified and the amount of compensation be awarded in favour of the claimants in toto as claimed by them in their claim case.
I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully scanned the
entire material made available to me.
From a perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal it is clear that the learned tribunal has considered each and every aspect of the matter, thus requires no interference of this Court. However, I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned tribunal while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 4 which are reproduced as under:
fook|d la[;k&,d o nks bu fook|dksa dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZx.k ij FkkA izkFkhZ;k Jherh 'kkfUr nsoh ,-M-1 us nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k mlds ifr jke/ku 'kekZ dh e`R;q dkfjr gksuk dFku djrs gq;s izn'kZ-1 ls izn'kZ-60 nLrkostrk izn'kZ djk;s gSaA izfr ijh{kk esa bl lk{kh;k dk dFku gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; og ekSds ij ugha Fkh] mlus nq?kZVuk ugha ns[khA -------
/kkjk&133 o 134 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds uksfVl izn'kZ-6 o 7 rFkk jftLVªs'ku izek.k & i= izn'kZ-11 ds vk/kkj ij nq?kZVuk ds le; nl okgu dk pkyd vizkFkhZ la[;k&01 dk gksuk o ekfyd vizkFkhZ la[;k & 02 dk gksuk Li"V gksrk gSA bl lk{; ds [k.Mu esa Hkh vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k&01 } kjk] vizkFkhZ la[;k&02 ds LokfeRo ds bl okgu dks rst xfr] xQyr o ykijokgh ls pyk;k tkdj ;g nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ] ftlesa jke/ku dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZA vr% ;s fook|d blh izdkj izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa o vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) r; fd;s tkrs gSA fook|d la[;k&pkj 14- bl fook|d dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZx.k ij FkkA Dyse ;kfpdk esa e`rd dh vk;q&65 o"kZ vafdr dh xbZ gSA e`rd ds pksV izfrosnu izi= izn'kZ-9] ,Dl&js fjiksVZ izn'kZ-10 o fMLpktZ fVfdV izn'kZ-13 esa e`rd dh mez&70 o"kZ vafdr dh xbZ gS] fMLpktZ fVfdV izn'kZ-14 esa e`rd dh vk;q&66 o"kZ vafdr dh xbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa e`rd dh vk;q 66 ls 70 o"kZ ds chp ekuh tkuk mfpr gksxkA -------
vr% izkFkhZx.k dqy 1]62]000@& $ 10]000@& $ 5]000@& $ 5]000@& $ 14]000@& $ 10]000@& = 2]06]000@& :i;s {kfriwfrZ izkIr dj ldasxsA izkFkhZx.k us varfje iapkV dh jkf'k izkir ugha dh gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k&01 }kjk] vizkFkhZ la[;k&02 ds LokfeRo ds nl okgu dks rst xfr] xQyr o ykijokgh ls pyk;k tkdj ;g nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ] ftlesa jke/ku dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ rFkk nq?kZVuk ds le; ;g okgu vizkFkhZ la[;k &03 chek dEiuh ds ;gkW chfer okgu FkkA blfy;s rhuksa vizkFkhZx.k la;qDr :i ls o i`Fkd & i`Fkd ;g {kfriwfrZ jkf'k vnk djus ds fy;s mRrjnk;h gksaxsA vr% ;g fook|d blh izdkj izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa o vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) r; fd;k tkrk gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij esa izkFkhZx.k] vizkFkhZx.k la[;k&01 fo".kq flag] ua- 02 foiqy HkkbZ o ua- 03 chek dEiuh ls la;qDr :i ls o i`Fkd&i`Fkd 2]06]000@& :i;s ¼v{kjs nks yk[k N% gtkj :i;s½ {kfriwfrZ izkIr dj ldsxsaA vizkFkhZx.k bl jkf'k ij izkFkZuk & i= is'k gksus dh fnukad 18-02-11 ls 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt vnk djsaxsA blh vuq:i iapkV ikfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA In the result this civil misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is affirmed.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J. Sharma NK