Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited, Sansar Chandra v. Jaipur on 28 Apr 2025

Judgment

1. Kaluram Meena S/o Shri Omkar Meena, Aged About 53 Years, R/o A-33, Chetak Vihar Extension, Agra Road, Jaipur (Raj.) Police Station Kanota.

2. Sanjay Kumar Singhal S/o Bhikham Chand Singhal, R/o Vivekanand Colony, Mahuwa, Tehsil And District Dausa. (Driver Vehicle Honda City No. Rj-29-Ca-5056)

Ravindra Kumar Singhal S/o Shri Bheekhchand Singhal, R/o Vivekanand Colony, Mahuwa, Tehsil And District Dausa. (Registered Owner Vehicle Honda City No. Rj-29- Ca-5056) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1402/2020 Kaluram Meena S/o Omkar Meena, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of A-33, Chetak Vihar Extension, Agra Road, Police Station Kanota, Jaipur Versus ----Appellant

1. Sanjay Kumar Singhal S/o Bhikham Chand Singhal, Resident Of Vivekanand Colony, Mahuwa, Tehsil And District Dausa. (Driver Honda City Car No. Rj-29-Ca- 5056)

2. Ravindra Kumar Singhal S/o Bhikham Chand Singhal, Resident Of Vivekanand Colony, Mahuwa, Tehsil And District Dausa. (Owner Honda City Car No. Rj-29-Ca- 5056)

3. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Regional Office At 5Th Floor, Near Royal World City Centre, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur Through Its Regional Manager (Insurance Company Honda City Car [2025:RJ-JP:17882] (2 of 7) [CMA-2339/2019] No. Rj-29-Ca-5056) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agrawal with Mr. Vimal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur Kumar Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 28/04/2025 Order S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2339/2019 :-

1. Both these appeals are arising out of common order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in MAC No.527/2017 and therefore, the same are decided by this common order.

2. The appeal No.2339/2019 has been filed by the appellant-Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. with a challenge to the award passed by the learned MACT No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on three grounds: (i) that the claimant has failed to establish the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration number RJ-29-CA-5056 (ii) the compensation allowed was at the higher side for the reason that the claimant is a Government servant and (iii) there is no loss of income due to the injury alleged to have sustained by him in the accident.

3. Mr. Rishipal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance-company submits that the FIR as regards [2025:RJ-JP:17882] (3 of 7) [CMA-2339/2019] the accident has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 5 days without there being any satisfactory explanation for the same which creates doubt about involvement of the vehicle bearing registration number RJ-29-CA-5056. Learned counsel further submits that an ambulance was reached the spot to bring the injured. However, despite this no intimation was given to the Police as regards the accident nor about the vehicle involved in the asccident.

4. Learned counsel also submits that the compensation allowed to the claimant is at the higher side for the reason that the claimant is a Government servant. Further, because of amputation of his left leg below the knee, no loss of income, as such, has been caused to the claimant.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submits that the involvement of the vehicle-in-question has been proved by adducing evidence by the claimant side and the said evidence has not been controverted. He further submits that the appellant/insurance-company has not adduced any evidence to deny the fact that the vehicle- in-question was not involved in the accident. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1402/2020 :-

6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the learned MACT has not allowed appropriate compensation, hence it is required to be enhanced.

7. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the record of the claim petition. [2025:RJ-JP:17882] (4 of 7) [CMA-2339/2019]

8. Issue No.1 was framed by the learned Tribunal as regards the involvement of the vehicle-in-question in the accident.

9. The injured-witness, AW-1-Kaluram Meena in his evidence has stated that on 06.09.2017 while going on his motorcycle, he was hit by the vehicle-in-question, which was being driven rashly and negligently. He also stated that he had seen the registration number of the car soon after the accident but he could not report the matter as he was taken to the hospital for treatment. He has also stated that because of the amputation of his left leg below the knee, he was declared unfit for the post and further hampered his promotions, which caused huge loss to him.

10. The insurance-company has not led any evidence to show that the vehicle-in-question was not involved in the accident.

11. There is an evidence of the injured-witness, AW-1- Kaluram Meena and so also the charge-sheet of the Police in criminal case to prove the fact that the vehicle-in- question was involved in the accident and the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence has rightly given its finding as regards the involvement of the vehicle-in- question in the alleged accident.

12. Since the law as regards the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and as regards the claim petitions, degree of proof of involvement of a vehicle-in- [2025:RJ-JP:17882] (5 of 7) [CMA-2339/2019] question in an accident, cannot be stated to be at the same footing as that required in a criminal case i.e. to be proved beyond reasonable doubt like in criminal jurisprudence.

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos.4010-4011/2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No.32011-32012/2018 decided on

08.12.2020 has given similar observations as under:- “22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye-witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz wherein this Court reiterated that: “7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pick- up van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himanchal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530 : [2025:RJ-JP:17882] (6 of 7) [CMA-2339/2019] (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010)1 SCC (Cri) 1101])” (emphasis supplied)

14. As regards the quantum of compensation amount is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the insurance- company has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.1579/2022) decided on 23.02.2022.

15. In the case of Satish Chandra Sharma (Supra) a person who was working in the CID Department wherein, the claimant suffered 75% disability in the lower limbs and who was to retire within following two years, the Hon’ble Apex Court has awarded Rs.10,00,000/- in lump- sum.

16. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as regards the quantum and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case including the fact that the claimant was working on the post of Head Constable (RPF) who is to continue his service for a further period of 8 years but was declared ineligible for further promotion because of the injury sustained in the alleged accident and so also the evidence on record, this Court finds that the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal seems to be justified. [2025:RJ-JP:17882] (7 of 7) [CMA-2339/2019]

17. In view of the discussion made above, both these appeals, are hereby, dismissed.

18. Stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Ashish Kumar /81-82 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J