Rajasthan High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Rajni W/O Late Roop Singh on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2187/2019
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Having Its
Registered And Head Office At 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400001 And Having Its Regional Office At Second Floor,
South Block, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Constituent Attoney
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajni W/o Late Roop Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of Village-Hingota, Tehsil Baseri At Present Bai
Ka Bag, Tehsil, Bari, District Dholpur Rajasthan
2. Jyoti D/o Late Roop Singh, Aged About 10 Years,
Resident Of Village-Hingota, Tehsil Baseri At Present Bai
Ka Bag, Tehsil, Bari, District Dholpur Rajasthan
3. Deeksha D/o Late Roop Singh, Aged About 8 Years,
Resident Of Village-Hingota, Tehsil Baseri At Present Bai
Ka Bag, Tehsil, Bari, District Dholpur Rajasthan
4. Vivek S/o Late Roop Singh, Aged About 6 Years, Resident
Of Village-Hingota, Tehsil Baseri At Present Bai Ka Bag,
Tehsil, Bari, District Dholpur Rajasthan
5. Anuradha D/o Late Roop Singh, Aged About 4 Years And 6
Months Resident Of Village-Hingota, Tehsil Baseri At
Present Bai Ka Bag, Tehsil, Bari, District Dholpur
Rajasthan
6. Dheeraj S/o Late Roop Singh, Aged About 3 Years 2
Months, Resident Of Village-Hingota, Tehsil Baseri At
Present Bai Ka Bag, Tehsil, Bari, District Dholpur
Rajasthan
7. Mankaur W/o Late Patiram, Aged About 70 Years,
Resident Of Village-Hingota, Tehsil Baseri At Present Bai
Ka Bag, Tehsil, Bari, District Dholpur Rajasthan
(Claimants No. 2 To 6 Are Under Guardianship Of Mother
Rajni)
8. Veeri Singh S/o Tulua, Resident Of Gopalpura, Muraina, At
Present Village Vidarpur, Tehsil Bari District Dholpur
Rajasthan (Owner)
----Respondents
(2 of 4) [CMA-2187/2019]
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singhal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv.
Mr.Deepak Sharma, for No.8.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
17/08/2021
The matter comes up on the misc. application
No.1/2020 filed by the claimants for waiving the condition of
furnishing solvent surety & undertaking and also to vacate the
stay order of payment of 50% of the award amount.
This Court finds that a Coordinate Bench on 31.05.2019
while issuing the notices in the appeal, had stayed the
operation/execution of judgment and award dated 18.02.2019 on
the condition that the appellant was to deposit the entire award
amount within one month with the Tribunal and on such deposit
being made, the claimants were at liberty to withdraw 50%, out of
the said amount on their furnishing solvent security and an
undertaking to the fact that if the appellants successfully
succeeded in the appeal, the said amount was to be refunded with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of withdrawal till refund.
The remaining 50% of the amount was to be invested in the FDR
with the Nationalized Bank for a period of one year and which was
to be renewed from time to time.
This Court finds that the application filed by the
claimants was listed before a Coordinate Bench and Coordinate
Bench vide its order dated 01.02.2021 directed the matter to be
listed before the Regular Bench. Hence this matter has come up
before this Court today.
(3 of 4) [CMA-2187/2019]
Learned counsel submitted that though interim order
was passed by this Court on 31.05.2019, however, 50% of the
amount has not been disbursed to the claimants as they are
unable to give solvent surety.
Learned counsel Mr.Dinesh Kumar Garg submitted that
condition of giving the solvent surety is onerous and same cannot
be fulfilled by the claimants.
Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased
was the bread earner and claimants are wife and children of the
deceased and as such, they do not have any source of livelihood.
Learned counsel Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singhal has opposed
the prayer made in the application and submitted that this Court
considering the prima facie view in favour of the appellant has
passed the order dated 31.05.2019.
Learned counsel further submitted that by putting a
condition of giving solvent surety, the amount of Insurance
Company so paid can only be secured for effecting recovery, in
case, appeal is allowed by this Court and as such, learned counsel
further submitted that the interim order dated 31.05.2019, does
not require any modification/vacation.
This Court finds that the claimants were held entitled
for compensation and accordingly, award was passed in their
favour.
This Court finds that the condition which is imposed by
a Coordinate Bench of this Court of giving solvent surety is difficult
to be fulfilled by the claimants.
This Court further finds that the purpose of staying the
operation/execution of the impugned award and further directing
the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the award
(4 of 4) [CMA-2187/2019]
amount was only to give some relief to the claimants as the
disposal of appeal takes some time for reason of heavy dockets of
this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
This Court, accordingly, allows the misc. application
filed by the claimants and modifies the order dated 31.05.2019.
This Court directs the claimants to give an undertaking
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur to the effect
that the amount of 50%, which is to be paid to them, will be
subject to final outcome of the present appeal and in case, the
appeal of the appellant is allowed in that eventuality, the
claimants will be bound to return the said amount. This needful
exercise of disbursing the amount to the claimants may be
undertaken by the Tribunal within a period of two weeks after
receipt of certified copy of this order.
The record will be sent back to the Tribunal for
disbursing the amount and after disbursal of the amount, the
record may be sent back to this Court immediately.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J
Himanshu Soni/Parul/68
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
