NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. CHHOTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award dated 16.06.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,61,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants-respondents, the appellant- Insurance Company has challenged the same before this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents filed a claim petition against the defendants stating therein that on 16.08.2007, when Mewaram, the husband of claimant- respondent No. 1, Smt. Chhoti Devi, was travelling in a Bolero Jeep, bearing registration No. RJ-14-UA-2323, a Truck, bearing registration No. RJ-14- 1-G-5606, which was being driven rashly and negligently, hit the Bolero Jeep from the wrong side. Resultantly, due to the serious injuries, Mewaram died. Inspite of service, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 did not appear. Therefore, an ex-parte order was passed against them. The defendant No. 4, the Insurance Company, submitted its written statement claiming therein that the truck was being driven on the correct side of the road, that too at a reasonable speed, whereas the driver of the Bolero Jeep was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable for any compensation. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined four witnesses and submitted thirty-one documents. On the other hand, the defendants neither examined any witnesses, nor submitted any documents to buttress their case. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, vide award dated 16.06.2010, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation, as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Rahul Joshi, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, according to the claimants-respondents, Mewaram had entered into a partnership with two other persons. According to the partnership deed, 40% of the profit of the partnership firm was being given to Mewaram. According to the learned Counsel, this is most unnatural as generally the profit of the partnership firm is divided equally amongst the partners. Secondly, the income tax returns submitted by the claimants were filed by them after the death of Mewaram. Therefore, the returns should not have been believed by the learned Tribunal. Thirdly, according to the claimant and according to the partnership-deed, the salary was to be paid only to the Mewaram and not to the other two partners. This also casts doubt about the veracity of the partnership deed.