Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chollamandalam Ms General Ins. Co. Ltd vs Smt. Chuki Devi & Ors on 18 May, 2018
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 490 / 2018
Chollamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited,
Registered and Main Office, Daare House Second Floor No. 2,
N.S.C Boss Road, Chennai- 600001
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Chuki Devi Wife of Late Devilal @ Devaram, Aged
About 45 Years
2. Om Prakash Son of Late Devilal @ Devaram, Aged About 20
Years
3. Govind Son of Late Devilal @ Devaram, Aged About 18 Years
4. Sanjay Son of Late Devilal @ Devaram, Aged About 16
Years, By Caste Bhaat Banjara, All Are Resident of Subhash
Nagar, Pali, District Pali (Raj.)
---Claimants
5. Paras Banjara Son of Pukharam, By Caste Bhaat, Resident of
136 Shubhash Nagar B, District Pali (Raj.).
6. Govind Son of Pukhraj, By Caste Banjara, Resident of 128
Shubhash Nagar B, District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vipul Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari
Mr. VD Dadhich
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
18/05/2018
The matter comes upon for confirmation of the stay.
(2 of 5)
[CMA-490/2018]
With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard
finally.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the judgment & award dated 29.11.2017 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in Motor Accident
Claim Application Case No.184/2016.
Briefly facts of the case are that on 11.06.2011 at around
08:00 P.M. deceased Devilal along with his wife went for
purchasing the Fodder in Loading Tempo bearing registration No.
RJ22-G.A.-1871. At around 8.30 p.m., when they reached in front
of the Mill-Gate, the Tempo in which they were travelling met with
an accident and overturned. Due to the said incident, Devilal
sustained grievious injuries and was taken to the Bangur Hospital,
Pali from where he was referred to Mathura Das Mathur Hospital,
Jodhpur. During treatment Devilal died.
In these circumstances, the appellants preferred a claim
petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pali being Motor
Accident Claim Case No.184/2016 for grant of compensation. The
reply was filed on behalf of the respondents denying the
allegations in the claim petition. Thereafter, on completion of the
pleadings the learned Tribunal framed the issues.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal
decided the claim petition of the appellants and awarded a sum of
Rs.8,26,000/- in favour of the appellants and directed the
respondents to pay an interest @ 9% per annum on the amount
awarded on filing of the application i.e. 26.10.2016.
I have heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the
(3 of 5)
[CMA-490/2018]
impugned judgment and award.
The counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that
there is nothing on record which shows that the Fodder belonged
to the deceased Devilal as there is no receipt for the purchase of
the Fodder. He further submits that there is no documentary
evidence which is placed on record for hiring the offending vehicle
in question for transportation of the Fodder. He further submits
that deceased was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the
offending vehicle which was only meant for the transportation of
goods and the risk, therefore, was not covered for the persons
who are travelling as unauthorized persons. He further submits
that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation by
fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent has
submitted that it has categorically come on record that the Fodder
which was purchased by the deceased and his wife was being
taken along in the tempo and since they were travelling in the
offending vehicle along with goods, therefore, in view of the
provisions under Section 147 (1)(b)(i) the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal has rightly
awarded the compensation in the present case.
He further submits that the fact of the Fodder being
purchased and taken along with deceased person has been proved
before the Tribunal and, therefore, no interference is called for in
the order passed by the Tribunal.
Having considered the rival submissions, I have examined
the order impugned.
(4 of 5)
[CMA-490/2018]
There is a categorical finding with respect to the Fodder
being taken by the deceased in the Loading Tempo i.e. an
offending vehicle and while taking the same and while travelling
the deceased as the owner of the goods have sustained grievous
injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. In view of the
provisions under Section 147 (1)(b)(i) which reads as under :-
"147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability
(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this
Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy
which-
(b). Insures the person or classes of persons specified
in the policy to the extent specified in sub-
section(2)-
(i). against any liability which may be
incurred by him in respect of the death of
or bodily [injury to any person, including
owner of the goods or his authorised
representative carried in the vehicle] or
damage to any property of a third party
caused by or arising out of the use of the
vehicle in a public place;"
The Insurance Company is liable to cover the risk of a person
if the owner of the goods is travelling along with the goods in the
vehicle.
I further find that the Tribunal has elaborately considered the
submissions made and decided issue No.2 in favour of the
claimants.
In view of whatever stated as above, there is no infirmity in
the judgment & order passed by the Tribunal hence, no
interference is called for. The appeal thus has no force and the
(5 of 5)
[CMA-490/2018]
same is, therefore, dismissed.
Since the appeal itself has been dismissed, the stay
application also stands dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR), J.
Solanki Sunil/- 29