Jaipur v. Vijendra Kumar Meena S/o Ghasi Ram, R/o Achrol, Meeno Ki

Judgment

3. Vijendra Kumar Meena S/o Ghasi Ram, R/o Achrol, Meeno Ki Dhani, P.s. Chandwaji, District Jaipur Driver Vehicle Truck No. Rj-14-1G-9810 Sneh Singhal W/o Naresh Kumar Singhal, R/o House No. C- 175, Malivya Nagar, Jaipur. Owner Vehicle Truck No. Rj-14- 1G-9810 New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office At Tonk Road, Jaipur. Insurance Company Vehicle Truck No. Rj-14-1G-9810 ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Gaurav Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/04/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL):

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on behalf of the appellant against the award dated 14.06.2013 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jaipur District Jaipur in claim case No.342/2013 (1014/2008, 1389/2007), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant- appellant has been partly allowed whereby awarding compensation of Rs.58,545/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of the appellant and further exonerated the respondent No.3- Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation to the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition before the learned MACT Court under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained [2025:RJ-JP:18063] (2 of 6) [CMA-3256/2013] by him in the road accident on 02.07.2006 when he was going on the vehicle truck No. RJ-14-1G-9810 in the capacity as Khalasi and the said vehicle was collided with different vehicle, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his leg. It was submitted that at the time of accident, the injured was 47 years of age and was earning Rs.5,500/- per month by way of Khalasi on truck. It was submitted that at the time of accident, the truck was driven by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is the owner of the truck and the said truck was insured with respondent No.3- Insurance Company.

3. In the claim petition respondent No.2 filed reply while admitting the fact that the appellant was Khalasi on the vehicle and he was giving salary of Rs.4,000/- to the appellant-injured.

4. Per contra, respondent No.3- Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and refuted the averments made therein and contended that vehicle in question was carriage commercial vehicle and insured in respect of open policy 'A' liability only and injured was travelling as passenger thus, there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the learned MACT Court framed following issues:- 1- vk;k iz'uxr okgu la[;k vkjts 14&1th&9810 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 1 ds }kjk fnukad 02-07-2006 dks le; 1%00 ,,e ds yxHkx LFkku 'kDdjdqbZ] Fkkuk vkesj ij mDr okgu dks mis{kk@mrkoysiu ls pykdj dh xbZ nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds ifj.kkeLo:i eqa'kh [kka ds pksVsa vkbZ \ 2- vk;k mDr okgu pkyd rc mDr okgu Lokeh foi{kh la[;k 2 ds fu;kstu esa gksdj mlh ds fgrkFkZ ,oa ykHkkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk \ [2025:RJ-JP:18063] (3 of 6) [CMA-3256/2013] 3- vk;k foi{kh la[;k 3 chek daiuh }kjk vius fyf[kr dFku dh izkjafHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo'ks"k dFku ds en~nsutj chek dEiuh vius nkf;Ro ls eqDr gks ldrh gS ugha rks bldk izHkko \ 4- vk;k nkosnkj vius nkos esa vafdr iz'uxr jkf'k ;k vU; dksbZ U;k; lEer jkf'k ik ldk gS gka rks dkSu&dkSu nkosnkj fdruh&fdruh jkf'k] fdl&fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl izdkj ls ik ldrs gSa \ 5- vuqrks"k \

5. During the course of trial, the claimant examined himself as AW-1 and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.113.

6. On behalf of the respondents, three witnesses were examined as NAW-1 Pravesh Nigam, NAW-2 Sneh Singhal and NAW-3 Vijendra Kumar Meena and produced documents Ex. D1 to Ex. D7.

7. After hearing arguments of the parties, learned MACT Court has decided issue No.3 wherein it was held that the injured was not Khalasi on the truck and he was travelling as passenger and as per the policy, the risk of the occupants were not covered, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount.

8. While deciding issue No.4 learned MACT Court has awarded compensation of amount Rs.58,545/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.

9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned MACT Court erred in awarding the lessor amount of compensation and also erred in exonerating the Insurance Company. It was further submitted that the learned MACT Court seriously misread the reply of respondent No.2 wherein, she [2025:RJ-JP:18063] (4 of 6) [CMA-3256/2013] categorically admitted that the injured was appointed as Khalasi by her and she is paying a salary of Rs.4,000/- to him. Despite this direct evidence, learned MACT Court erred in holding that the injured was not Khalasi of the truck in question. It was also submitted that inadequate compensation was awarded under issue No.4 in view of the injury sustained by the claimant specially looking to the Ex.12 and according to which he sustained permanent disability of 29.25% and prayed for modification of the impugned award.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company submits that in view of the statement of the injured, it is evident that injured was not sitting in the vehicle in the capacity of Khalasi and further submitted that Insurance Company has been validly exonerated in the present matter and further submitted the impugned award is perfectly just and proper, therefore, no interference is called for. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivaraj vs. Rajendra and Anr. reported in 2018 10 SCC 432 decided on 05.09.2018.

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

12. From a bare perusal of record of the case, it reveals that respondent Nos.1 & 2- owner and driver of the vehicle have categorically admitted the fact that the injured was travelling in the vehicle in the capacity of Khalasi. It is also relevant to note that the owner also appeared in the witness box and supported his version that the injured was Khalasi over the truck, therefore, [2025:RJ-JP:18063] (5 of 6) [CMA-3256/2013] findings recorded by learned MACT Court under issue No.3 that the appellant failed to prove that he was sitting in the vehicle in the capacity of Khalasi is perverse and deserves to be set aside and while exonerating the Insurance Company, it has been held that injured was not travelling in the capacity of Khalasi and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable aforesaid finding is based on inadmissible evidence and the same are contrary to direct evidence available on record. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the Insurance Company (supra) there is no quarrel about the legal proposition propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court but in view of the facts and evidence of the case, this judgment is distinguishable, thus, finding of the learned MACT Court qua issue No.3 deserves to be set aside. In view of above discussion, the finding recorded by the learned MACT Court under issue No.3 are perverse in the eye of law, thus, hereby reversed and decided in favour of the appellant and the appellant is held to be Khalasi over the truck.

13. So far as the findings recorded under issue No.4 with regard to quantum of compensation awarded is concerned the appellant has failed to give any cogent reason for enhancement of compensation awarded under the impugned order. Thus, compensation so awarded is appears to be just and proper and the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

14. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed, finding on issue No.3 is set aside and it is held that the appellant was travelling in the capacity of Khalasi over the truck, therefore, it [2025:RJ-JP:18063] (6 of 6) [CMA-3256/2013] has been directed that Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs.58,545/- to the injured.

15. Rest of the finding qua issue No.4 of the award is maintained, the appeal is allowed in part as mentioned herein above with no order as to costs. DEEPA RANI -54 (MANEESH SHARMA),J