Chandraprakash vs Sunita Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 19169 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 69/2020

Chandraprakash S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Ramgadh, Tehsil Masuda, Dist. Ajmer (Raj.)

----Appellant

Versus

1. Sunita Devi W/o Late Gopal, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Ramgadh, At Present R/o Ganesh Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil Hurda, Dist. Bhilwara.

2. Pradeep Soni S/o Late Gopal, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Late Gopal, B/c Soni, Aged 38 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Ramgadh, At Present R/o Ganesh Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil Hurda, Dist. Bhilwara.

3. Rahul Soni S/o Late Gopal, Aged About 15 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Late Gopal, B/c Soni, Aged 38 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Ramgadh, At Present R/o Ganesh Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil Hurda, Dist. Bhilwara.

4. Ankita Soni D/o Late Gopal, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Late Gopal, B/c Soni, Aged 38 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Ramgadh, At Present R/o Ganesh Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil Hurda, Dist. Bhilwara.

5. Shri Bhanwarlal S/o Shri Kundanmal, Aged About 70 Years, B/ c Soni, R/o Ramgadh, At Present R/o Ganesh Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil Hurda, Dist. Bhilwara.

6. Smt. Gulab Devi W/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 68 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Ramgadh, At Present R/o Ganesh Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil Hurda, Dist. Bhilwara.

7. Mahendra S/o Shri Ghasiram, B/c Nayak, R/o Devpura, Ramgadh, Tehsil Masuda, Dist. Ajmer (Driver)

8. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Branch Office, Bhilwara , Dist. - Bhilwara (Insurance Company)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankit Pratap Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Singh Rathore Mr. Shyam Mathur Surana Mr. Saurabh Surana

(2 of 4) [CMA-69/2020]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

16/12/2021

This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is owner of the

vehicle in question and non-claimant No.2 in the Motor Accident Claim

Case No.149/2016 titled as Sunita Devi and Ors. vs. Mahendra Singh &

Ors., decided by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gulabpura, Bhilwara

vide judgment dated 22.10.2019.

The notices of the appeal were issued which have been served. As

per office report, service is complete.

Counsel for the claimants-respondent, the Insurance Company

and the Driver are present.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the impugned

judgment dated 22.10.2019, the Tribunal has decided the issue No.3

against the Insurance Company and declined to exonerate the

Insurance Company from liability to pay the compensation amount. The

findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 have been read over

before the court.

Counsel for the appellant has argued that it is clear by perusal of

such findings that the Tribunal has held the Insurance Company liable to

pay compensation and declined to exonerate the Insurance Company

from his liability, however, while passing the final award to pay

compensation, the liability to make payment has been fixed on the

owner and driver (non-claimant Nos.1 and 2) and the Insurance

Company, who was non-claimant No.3, has not been shown in the

operative portion of the judgment and award.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3 of 4) [CMA-69/2020]

It appears by perusal of the cause title of the impugned judgment

that though there are three non-claimants (1) Mahendra (Driver), (2)

Chandraprakash (owner of vehicle) and (3) United India Insurance

Company, however, chronology of numbers was mentioned as 1,2 and

2, therefore, it appears that while passing the final award, in the

operative portion of award only non-applicant Nos.1 to 2 have been

mentioned, whereas same should be 1, 2 and 3 including the non-

claimant No.3-United Insurance Company. Although this typographical

error ought to have been get corrected before the Tribunal itself,

however, the appeal has been filed by the owner of vehicle assailing the

judgment dated 22.10.2019 to modify the award holding the non-

clamant to 1 to 3 as liable to pay compensation jointly and severally.

Be that as it may, the error occurred in the operative portion of

the judgment/award dated 22.10.2019 in mentioning the serial number

of non-claimant as 1 to 2 instead of serial Nos.1,2, 3 appears to be

typographical/accidental error, which needs to be corrected.

The findings of issue no.3 are clear that the Insurance Company

who is non applicant No.3 before the Tribunal has been declined to be

exonerated is also liable to pay the compensation, therefore, not

mentioning of his serial number in the operative portion, does not

absolve the Insurance Company from its liability.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not in a position to

dispute the findings of issue No.3 passed against the Insurance

Company vide judgment dated 22.10.2019.

Thus it is hereby directed that in the operative portion of the

judgment/award dated 22.10.2019 liability to pay the awarded

compensation be read against the non-claimants No.1, 2 and 3 jointly

and severally including the non applicant No.3-United India Insurance

Company.

(4 of 4) [CMA-69/2020]

In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed with the

aforesaid correction by modifying the award dated 22.10.2019.

Stay application and all the pending applications are disposed of.

Record be send back to the Tribunal.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

97-Taruna/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)