Smt. Sarla Devi Ors v. Suresh Chand Ors

4. Smt. Lali Devi w/o Late Rajendra Prasad, aged about 54 years, r/o Dabadwas, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)

5. Suresh Chand s/o Shri Bahadur Singh, aged about 44 years, r/o Kankar Chhaja, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Driver of Vehicle ----Claimants/Respondents No.HR-47-A-8168)

6. Vikram Singh s/o Shri Danaram, r/o Kankar Chhaja, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Owner of Vehicle No.HR-47-A-8168) ---Non-claimants/respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 29/04/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred as "Insurance Company") under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1988") assailing the award dated 15.10.2014 passed by learned Judge, [2025:RJ-JP:18121] (2 of 6) [CMA-123/2015] Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Behror, District Alwar in Claim Case No.127/2013 titled as "Smt. Sarla Devi & Ors. Vs. Suresh Chand & Ors.", whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants- respondents has been allowed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants-respondents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Behror, District Alwar under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of the alleged loss suffered by them due to death of Maharam Yadav, who allegedly died in the road accident that took place on 10.03.2013. It was further pleaded that the deceased Maharam Yadav was walking as a pedestrian along with Murarilal as their motorcycle bearing No.RJ- 02-ST-8453 ran out of petrol. Unfortunately, a Trailer bearing No.HR-47-A-8168 driven by Suresh Chand hit the deceased and the deceased Maharam Yadav sustained injuries and later on died, the claimants are legal representatives of the deceased Maharam Yadav. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased aged 36 years, was working as Guard in the office of District Consumer Forum and drawing a salary of Rs.15,572/- per month. Accordingly, claimants prayed for the compensation.

3. The non-claimant, owner and driver of the vehicle filed a reply to the claim petition wherein they have denied any negligence of their past but they did not lead any evidence in the case.

4. The Insurance Company filed its reply denying the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that there is collision [2025:RJ-JP:18121] (3 of 6) [CMA-123/2015] among the claimants, driver and owner of the Trailor; Insurance Company further stated that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, that the accident was caused by an unidentified vehicle and that the involvement of their insured vehicle had been wrongly shown, further amount claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned MACT Court has framed the following issues: 1- vk;k fnukad 10-03-2013 dks vizkFkhZ la-&1 ds }kjk okgu la[;k ,p-vkj- 47,&8168 dks xQyr] ykijokgh o rst xfr ls pykdj fookfnr nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ] ftlesa egkjke dh e`R;q gks xbZ \ 2- vk;k izkFkhZx.k vius Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gka rks fdlls o fdl dnj \ 3- vk;k vizkFkhZ okgu pkyd] vizkFkhZ la[;k&2 okgu Lokeh ds fu;kstu esa mlds fgrkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk \ 4- vk;k vizkFkhZ chek daiuh ds tokc izkFkZuk i= dh vkifRr;ksa esa of.kZr dkj.kksa ls chek daiuh mRrjnk;h ugha gS \ 5- vuqrks"k \

6. The claimant in order to substantiate, the averments of the case examined two witnesses, namely AW.1-Smt.Sarla Devi and AW.2-Vedprakash and considering produced documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex.17.

7. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, Shri Naresh Yogi (Officer) of the Insurance Company was examined as NAW.1 and produced documentary evidence marked Ex.NA-1, the Rojnamcha Report. [2025:RJ-JP:18121] (4 of 6) [CMA-123/2015]

8. Learned Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.29,52,660/- in favour of the claimants.

9. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is a delay of three days' in lodging the FIR which casts serious doubt about the accident and the involvement of the vehicle, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents supported the award and submitted that the impugned award is based on a sound appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Therefore, does not call any interference by this Court.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. Upon perusing the record of the learned Court below, it reveals that although there is a delay of three days in lodging of the FIR but as per the statement of claimant, soon after the accident, they had rushed to the hospital and after the death, they got occupied performing last rituals of the deceased and there is no mala-fide intention behind delay. The alleged delay has been duly explained by the claimants. The other contention, that the vehicle number was not mentioned in the Rojnamcha Report, is not of much relevance because it has not been lodged by claimants further it has also come on record that immediately after the accident, the claimants were occupied in the Hospitals as well as in performing the last rites of the deceased Maharam Yadav and the FIR was lodged immediately thereafter. It is also evident from the record, as per Exhibit-14, the notice given under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act and other documentary [2025:RJ-JP:18121] (5 of 6) [CMA-123/2015] evidence available on record, that the involvement of the vehicle is well proven by the fact that the chargesheet (Exhibit-1) was filed against the Driver of the Vehicle No.HR-47-A-8168. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a delay in filing the claim petition and that there is a possibility of false involvement of the vehicle, lacks merit. That apart from the above discussion from the findings of the learned MACT regarding Issue No.1, it is evident that learned MACT after considering the evidence of parties as well as law on the subject, rightly held that it is not a case of false involvement of vehicle and the alleged delay in lodging of the FIR is bona-fide and sufficiently explained. Under such circumstances, it can't be said that the finding of the learned MACT suffers from any legal infirmity or perversity.

13. That so far the quantum of the compensation is concern from the record of the case, it is evident that age of the deceased was 37 years and income of the deceased was considered on the basis of salary certificate Ex-15, further looking to the age of deceased multiplier of 15 has been awarded. Thus, in my considered opinion, it cannot said that excessive amount has been awarded by learned MACT Court under the impugned award. The findings recorded by the learned MACT Court under Issue No.2 is based on correct appreciation of fact and law.

14. Even otherwise, upon perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that findings recorded regarding issue Nos.1 to 4 under the impugned award are in accordance with law and there is no arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:18121] (6 of 6) [CMA-123/2015]

15. Hence, the present appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

16. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

17. The record of the learned Court below be sent back. Seema/129 (MANEESH SHARMA),J