Bhagirath vs Nenu And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 18954 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2718/2017

Bhagirath Son Of Chenaram Bishnoi, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer Owner Of Bolero Jeep No. Rj-15-Ta-0554

----Appellant Versus

1. Nenu Wife Of Late Shaitan Singh Alias Shaitan Ram,

2. Gomi Daughter Of Late Shaitan Singh Alias Shaitan Ram,

3. Bhalmati Daughter Of Late Shaitan Singh Alias Shaitan Ram,

4. Ramesh Daughter Of Late Shaitan Singh Alias Shaitan Ram,

5. Sohani Daughter Of Late Shaitan Singh Alias Shaitan Ram,

6. Hariram Son Of Narayan Ram,

7. Champa Wife Of Hariram, All Are By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of Gule Ki Beri, Shobhalal Darshan, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer.

8. Rughnath Ram Son Of Hari Kishan, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of Gangapura, Bherudi, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer Driver Of Bolero Jeep No. Rj-15-Ta-0554

9. Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8 Epip Riico, Seetapura, Jaipur. Insurance Comp. Bolero Jeep No. Rj-15-Ta-0554

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 23/2018 Bhagirath Son Of Shri Chenaram Bishnoi, By Caste- Bishnoi, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer. Owner Of Bolero Jeep No. Rj-15-Ta-0554

----Appellant Versus

1. Mohan Lal S/o Sadram, By Caste - Vishnoi, Resident Of Shobhala Darshan, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer.

2. Raghunath Ram Son Of Shri Hari Kishan, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of Gangapura, Bherudi, Tehsil

(2 of 3) [CMA-2718/2017]

Chohatan, District Barmer. Driver Of Bolero Jeep No. Rj- 15-Ta-0554

3. Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, Epip Riico, Seetapura, Jaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Pritam Solanki
For Respondent(s)         :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

13/12/2021

The present civil misc. appeals have been filed by the owner

of the vehicle assailing findings of the judgment and award dated

30.06.2017 to the extent that the Tribunal while passing the

award of compensation in favour of the respondent-claimants has

directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount

and then to recover the compensation amount from the owner.

Counsel for the appellants submits that before passing such

findings, the specific issue has to be framed regarding the breach

condition of the policy which was no framed in the claim petition.

Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Fahim Ahmad &

Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in

2014 DNJ (SC) page 321.

Heard.

Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application as well. Notices

be made returnable within ten weeks.

Heard on stay application.

Counsel for the appellants submit that as far as

compensation payable to the respondent-claimants is concerned

(3 of 3) [CMA-2718/2017]

the same has already paid by the insurance company and now the

insurance company is going to recover the amount from the

appellant.

In the meanwhile and until further orders, the recovery of

the compensation amount by the Insurance Company from the

appellant is stayed.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

7-Anshul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)