United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Jyoti Soni and Others

-ORDER

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is aggrieved by the award dated 12.11.2013 passed by MACT (Special Court Communal Riot Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted an award of Rs. 5,71,696/- along with the interest of 6% per annum to the claimants-respondents. The brief facts of the case are that on 2.12.2009, Shankar Lal Soni registered an FIR at Police Station Jhotwara, wherein he claimed that on 15.11.2009, around 8:00 PM, his nephew, Devendra, informed him on phone that his son, Narendra Kumar Soni, and his friend Rinku @ Manish have met with a vehicular accident. He immediately rushed to the Hospital. There Rinku and Devendra told him that Rinku and Narendra Kumar Soni were riding on their motorcycle from Pandit Ji Ki Thadi to Pankha Side. While Narendra was driving the motorcycle, Rinku was sitting as pillion rider. Suddenly, a Maruti Car, bearing Registered No. RJ-18-C-5525, came rashly and negligently, and collided with the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road. Consequently, Narendra suffered injury on his head, and suffered fracture on both his legs. Rinku suffered an injury on his head. Narendra continued to be at SMS Hospital from 15.11.2009 to 22.11.2009; he was in the S.K. Soni Hospital from 22.11.2009 to 25.11.2009. On the basis of this complaint, formal FIR was chalked out. With the death of Narendra, claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to buttress their case, they examined three witnesses, and submitted few documents. The Insurance Company did not examine any witness. After going through oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the award as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company.

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

Firstly, there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. Despite the fact that the accident occurred on 15.11.2009, the FIR was not lodged till 2.12.2009. The inordinate delay has not been explained. Secondly, according to the Rojnamcha registered on 16.11.2009, filed by Shankar Lal Soni himself, the accident had occurred with an unknown vehicle. Therefore, the present offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the case. Thirdly, due to the absence of Post Mortem Report, the cause of death is unknown. Therefore, it cannot be said that Narendra died due to vehicular accident. But, for medical bill, there is no evidence to show that Narendra was 24 years old at the time of his death, yet, a multiplier has been applied taking his age to be between ages of 20-25 years.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award.

Shankar Lal Soni had lost his young son. According to Shankar Lal Soni and according to Dr. Brijesh Bhardwaj (A.W. 3), from the moment Narendra had met with an accident, he had become unconscious. He continued to be unconscious from 15.11.2009 till his death, in the night of 25.11.2009. According to their testimonies, Narendra was shifted from SMS Hospital to S.K. Soni Hospital, as S.K. Soni Hospital has a center for poly-trauma patient. According to medical evidence, Narendra had suffered severe injury on his head; according to Dr. Brijesh Bhardwaj (A.W. 3), he had also suffered a heart attack. But he had survived the heart attack. Thus, from the moment he met with an accident, Narendra''s condition was critical. Obviously, the first effort of the family is to look after the medical needs of the injured member of the family. Moreover, after his death, naturally the family would have to perform the last rites, which extends to 12 days. Hence, the delay in lodging of the FIR is very well explained. Therefore, the learned counsel is not justified in contending that the FIR is inordinately delayed.

Immediately, after the accident, on 16.11.2009 the father had informed the police and his Rojnamcha was chalked out. Thus, it cannot be said that there was delay in informing the police. As far as the Rojnamcha is concerned, Shankar Lal Soni has clearly admitted that he does not know about the contents of Rojnamcha, as Rojnamcha was recorded by the police. Therefore, even if the number of vehicle is not mentioned in the Rojnamcha, it would not be fatal to the case of the claimants. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention that merely because Rojnamcha does not reveal a number of the offending vehicle, ipso facto, a inference should be drawn that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the case.

As mentioned above, according to the medical evidence, Narendra continued to be unconscious from the moment he met with the accident and till he died. Merely because there is no Post Mortem Report, it does not mean that the cause of death is unknown. Even if he was shifted to his house, the fact remains that he died in the night of 25.11.2009 - the very day he was shifted from the Hospital. Considering the fact that his condition was deteriorating, there is a live link between the alleged accident, and his death. Therefore, the learned counsel is not justified in claiming that the cause of death is unknown.

Although, it is true that Shankar Lal Soni has not tendered any documentary evidence to prove the age of Narendra, but in the claim petition, it was clearly stated that he was 24 years of age. This statement is further buttress by medical bills submitted by Shankar Lal Soni. Considering the fact that he was 24 years of age, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in applying the multiplier of 12. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. For the reasons stated above, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.