CMA/4104/2012 of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs RAJENDRA PRASAD AND OTHERS on 20 December 2013

JUDGMENT

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4104/2012

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Rajendra Prasad & Ors.S. B. CI VI L MI SC. APPEAL UNDER SECTI ON173 OF MOTOR VEHI CLE ACT, 1988 AGAI NSTTHE JUDGMENT DATED 29. 6. 2012 PASSED BYTHE MACT, DAUSA DI STRI CT, DAUSA

Date of Judgment : 20[th] December, 2013

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN

Mr . R. P. Vi j ay, f or t he appel l ant .Mr . Vi nay Mat hur , f or t he r espondent s.

The appel l ant , t he Or i ent al I nsur ance Co. Lt d.

i s aggr i eved by t he awar d dat ed 29. 6. 2012 passed by t heMot or Acci dent Cl ai ms Tr i bunal , Dausa Di st r i ct , Dausa,wher eby t he l ear ned Tr i bunal has gr ant ed an awar d ofRs. 40, 080/ - t o t he r espondent - cl ai mant .

2. The onl y cont ent i on r ai sed by t he l ear nedcounsel f or t he appel l ant bef or e t hi s Cour t i s t hat i t i sa case of cont r i but or y negl i gence. But , despi t e t hi sf act , t he ent i r e l i abi l i t y has been f ast ened on t heappel l ant . Accor di ng t o t he l ear ned counsel f or t heappel l ant t he Tr i bunal has f ai l ed t o appr eci at e t he si t epl an i n a pr oper per spect i ve. I n or der t o but t r ess t hi scont ent i on, t he l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant hasal so submi t t ed t he si t e pl an bef or e t hi s Cour t .

3. Hear d t he l ear ned counsel f or t he par t i es,per used t he i mpugned awar d, and t he si t e pl an pr oducedbef or e t hi s Cour t .

4. A bar e per usal of t he si t e pl an cl ear l y r eveal st hat t he Nat i onal Hi ghway No. 11 i s a hi ghway t hat l i esbet ween Jai pur and Mahua. A bi r d' s eye vi ew of t he sceneof t he acci dent , dr awn i n t he si t e pl an, cl ear l y showst hat t he Nat i onal Hi ghway No. 11 i s di vi ded i nt o t wopar t s, namel y t he upper par t whi ch shows t he r oad goi ngf r om Jai pur t o Mahua, and t he l ower par t whi ch shows t her oad goi ng f r om Mahua t o Jai pur . Accor di ng t o t he si t epl an, t he of f endi ng vehi cl e, namel y Mi ni - Tr uck bear i ngr egi st r at i on no. RJ- 08 GA 0338, was t r avel l i ng f r omJai pur t o Mahua as shown i n t he upper par t of t he si t epl an, wher eas t he Jugad ( a man made vehi cl e, const r uct edf or agr i cul t ur al pr upose) was t r avel l i ng f r om Mahua t oJai pur as shown i n t he l ower par t of t he si t e pl an. Si ncet he Bakr amandi was on t he ot her si de of t he r oad, namel yon t he r oad bet ween Jai pur t o Mahua, t he Judgad t r avel l edacr oss t he cut gi ven i n t he Nat i onal Hi ghway and wasbei ng dr i ven r i ght next t o t he di vi der . Meanwhi l e, t heof f endi ng vehi cl e whi ch was comi ng f r om Jai pur and goi ngt owar ds Mahua cr ossed over t he mi ddl e of t he r oad andwei r ed t owar ds i t s r i ght and hi t t he Jugad. Thi s i s cl earf r om t he pl ace of t he acci dent mar ked as ' x' i n t he si t epl an. Thus, i t i s obvi ous t hat t he Jugad was t r avel l i ngon t he cor r ect si de of t he r oad i . e. r i ght next t o t hedi vi der . Meanwhi l e, t he of f endi ng vehi cl e came f r om t hecor r ect si de of t he r oad i nt o t he wr ong par t of t he r oadand hi t t he Judgad. Nat ur al l y, t her ef or e, t he negl i gencel ay on t he par t of t he dr i ver of t he of f endi ng vehi cl e.Hence, t he concl usi on dr awn by t he l ear ned Tr i bunal i sl egal l y val i d.

3

5. Ther ef or e, t hi s Cour t does not f i nd anyi l l egal i t y or per ver si t y i n t he i mpugned awar d.

6. For t he r easons st at ed above, t he appeal bei ng devoi d of mer i t st ands di smi ssed.

(R.S. CHAUHAN),J.

Mak/-78All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Anil Makawana Jr. P.A