CMS/2749/2001 of DILIP KUMAR CHOKHANI Vs THE UOI AND ORS on 13 December 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.J U D G M E N TS.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1742/2001

S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.2749/2001

(Ibrahim & Anr. Versus Smt. Mathura Devi &Ors.)

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1301/2001(Smt. Mathura Devi & Ors. Versus Ibrahim &Ors.)

DATE OF JUDGMENT

:15.04.2015

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Mr. M. Iqbal Khan, counsel for the nonclaimants appellants in CMA No. 1742/2001Mr. CP Sharma, counsel for the claimantsMrs. Archna Mantri, counsel for the InsuranceCo.

Since both these appeals relate to one

incident and arise out of the common judgmentand award passed by the Tribunal, hence thearguments have been heard together and theyare being decided by this common judgment.

Brief facts of the case are that theclaimants filed claim petitions before theTribunal with regard to death of Maman Singhin a road accident which is said to have takenplace on 7.4.1999. Thereafter notices wereissued; reply was filed; certain issues wereframed and after hearing all the parties, thelearned Tribunal passed the judgment andaward dated 29.3.2001 decreeing an amount ofRs. 3,90,000/- as compensation in favour ofclaimants and the non claimants no. 1 and 2i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle were held liable to pay the compensation,whereas the Insurance co. was exonerated topay the quantum of compensation.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied withthe aforesaid amount of compensation, boththese appeals have been filed: one by the nonclaimants and another by claimants forenhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the non claimantshas contended that the learned Tribunal haspassed the impugned award against theappellants holding that as per the conditionsof policy, Ibrahim was not holding anyeffective driving license at the time ofaccident. He has further contended that thepolicy clause can be divided into three parts.The first part refers to a person holding aneffective driving license at the time of theaccident. The second part refers to thedisqualification of such person from holdingit. Even after obtaining a license, a personmay get disqualified under the provisions ofthe Act from holding it and such a person willbe governed by the second part. The third partrefers to persons who are disqualified fromobtaining such a license. The first partcannot go together with the third part. Inother words, if a person is having an

effective driving license, he cannot be saidto be disqualified from obtaining such alicense. He has further contended thatadmittedly from the facts of the case, thedriver Ibrahim had renewed the driving licenseon 5.8.1999 itself, which shows that he wasnot disqualified. The burden has not beendischarged by the Insurance co. in this case.Therefore, the impugned judgment and award isliable to be set-aside against the appellants.

The learned counsel for the claimantshas contended that Tribunal has not properlyappreciated the oral as well as documentaryevidence available on record. He has furthercontended that the finding of the Tribunal isperverse and based on a wrong notionoverlooking the settled proposition of law andawarded a very meager amount of compensation.Hence the impugned judgment passed by theTribunal deserves to be modified.

On the other hand, learned counsel forthe Insurance Co. defended the impugnedjudgment and stated the same to be just andproper. She has further contended that theTribunal on the basis of material available onrecord, framed the issues and rightly decidedthe them. Hence, no interference is requiredby this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for theparties and carefully perused the impugnedjudgment and award.

Looking to the facts and circumstances

of the case, the Tribunal is found to havedealt with each and every aspect of the matterand rightly passed the impugned judgment andaward. I am in unison with the findingsarrived at by the learned Tribunal, therelevant part of which is reproduced asunder:

"इस पक र यह पथम दषय स ष ह कक ट क र न . आर.आर.ए. 9793 क च लकअप थ स .1 इब हहम न उक ट क र क! गफलत, त ज& व ल��रव ह( स चल कर ह)न क 7.4.99क! स ईककल “र ब”ठकर ज रह म मनसस ह क! “&छ” स “ककर म”र( जजसस म मनसस ह क0 म1तय3ह! गई।

अत: इस ववव दक स . 1 क ववननशय प थ गण क “क म; तथ” अप थ गण क ववरदककय ज त ह ।

ववव दक स .2

आय प थ गण बत>र पनतकर म3त बबक प थ@न पनतकर र सA व उस “र बय”ज प प करन क अप थ गण स अधEक र( हF?

इस ववव दक क! स बबत करन क भ र भ& प थ गण “र थ”। प थ गण क0 ओर स .ड.1 .8 पसत3त स कय म; एमथ3र ) व& ज! म1तक क0 “त& ह” न व तन पम ण “त पपसत3त ककय” ह जजसक अन3स र म1तक क! 3400 र य व तन समलत थ । ए.ड.2 करणसस ह व ए.ड.3 रड र मअ न बय न म; बत त हF कक म1तक म मनसस ह व��र वकस@ म; न>कर( करत थ । म1तक “र उसक0”त& उम 32 स ल व )! “3त कमA: बबज”नQ उम 10 स ल व स3र नQ 8 स ल क! ननभ@र बत य गय ह । प.8 व तन पम ण “त ज! सह”यक असभय त जन सव सRय असभय बतक ववभ ग उ खणडनतज र क द र ज र( ककय गय ह उसक अन3स र उसक क3ल व तन 3388 र य पनतम हसमलत थ जजसम; E3ल ई भत व मक न ककर य भत भ& A समल ह । इसक अन3स र म1तक क व ररस न क! ह3ई आय म; कनत क सलए 3000 र य पनतम ह आय म न ज न नय य!धचत पत&तह!त ह ।

“!स”म��@म रर ! @ प.4 क अन3स र म1तक क0 उम 35 स ल बत ई गई ह । उस “रननभ@रत” उसक0 “त& उम 32 स”ल “3त बबज”नQ उम 10 स ल व स3र नQ उम 8 स ल बत य गय 15 हF। इन ररजसथनतयX म; कनत Yनत@ र सA ननE @ररत ककय ज न ह त3 क ग3णक क पय!ग ककय "ज न नय य!धचत पत&त ह!त& ह ।

For these reasons, I do not think it

just and proper to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal andthus, the appeals filed by the non claimantsand claimants, being without any substance,are hereby dismissed after confirming thejudgment and award passed by the learnedTribunal.

The stay application also stands

dismissed accordingly.

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

Dilip KhandelwalPA