HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 637/2022 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Iffco House, 3Rd Floor, 34 Nehru Palace, New Delhi. Branch Office At 2Nd Floor Bhagwati Bhawan, Goverment Hostel Crossing, M I Road, Jaipur 302001 Through Its Authorized Representative.
----Appellant Versus
1. Smt. Aminat @ Sakhina W/o Late Sh. Hafizullah, B/c Muslim R/o Village Hindalgole, Tehsil Bap, Distt. Jodhpur.
2. Hanuman Ram S/o Prithvi Raj Bishnoi, R/o Hapu Ki Dhani, Bhalni, Tehsil Bagauda, Distt. Jalore. (Owner Of Car No. Rj-46-Ca-0497)
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Tp Claims Hub, Abhay Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. (Insurer Of Car No. Rj- 46-Ca-0497)
4. Sultan Khan S/o Hasan Khan, B/c Muslim R/o Village Kalra, Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur. (Owner Of Jeep No. Rj-19-C-8731)
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order 15/07/2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company on stay application.
The instant Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi, District Jodhpur in MACT Case No.63/2016 (Downloaded on 15/07/2022 at 08:51:59 PM) (2 of 3) [CMA-637/2022] (66/2016), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,93,621/-and held appellant-Insurance company liable for the same jointly and severally with other non- applicants.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgment and award submits that the policy was on "an Act on policy" and, therefore, the liability of the appellant- Insurance Company only is to cover the risk of a third party. It is also submitted that the claimant being the occupant of the vehicle in question cannot be construed as a third party. The fact of the matter remains that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company relied upon the following judgments:-
(1) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal and Others reported in 2007 ACJ 1284.
(2) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sudhakaran K.V. Vs. Others (Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 2008) decided on 16.05.2008.
(3) General Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi & Others reported in 2009 DNJ (SC) 89. (4) Leeladhar Vs. Mahendra Singh and Others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.211/2002) decided on 18.02.2021. (5) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Narsingh Tanwar and Another (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.658/2021) decided on 15.11.2021.
(6) The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Panchi Devi and Other (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2995/2018) decided on 3.11.2018.
(7) United India Insurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur Vs. Smt. Hudi and others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.765/2010) decided on 3.12.2013.(Downloaded on 15/07/2022 at 08:51:59 PM)
(3 of 3) [CMA-637/2022] Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company that the effect and operation of the impugned judgment may be stayed.
I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that the insurance policy was only on "an Act on Policy"
and the claimant herself was one of the occupants of the vehicle.
The matter requires consideration.
Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Issue notice of the stay application also, returnable within a period of six weeks.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, meanwhile effect, operation and execution of the judgment and award dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Phalodi in MACT Case No. 63/2016 (66/2016) shall remain stayed qua the appellant-Insurance Company.
Call for the record.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 10-Bharti/-(Downloaded on 15/07/2022 at 08:51:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)