Dhokalram vs Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2575 Raj

(1 of 9)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

*** (1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1682/2020

Dhokalram S/o Shankarlal, Aged About 58 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents

(2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1683/2020

Hadmaram S/o Lt. Punnaram, Aged About 53 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.)

(2 of 9)

(Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents

(3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1684/2020

Liladevi W/o Budharam, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch , Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1685/2020

Chukidevi W/o Pappuram, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.)

(3 of 9)

(Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch , Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents

(5) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1686/2020

Bhanwaridevi W/o Nemichand @ Hemaram, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch , Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents

(6) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1687/2020

Bhanwaridevi W/o Danaram, Aged About 44 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

(4 of 9)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch , Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents

(7) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1688/2020

Anju @ Ajodhya W/o Ramjeevan, Aged About 58 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch , Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents

(5 of 9)

(8) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1689/2020

Ramjeevan S/o Khiyaram, Aged About 60 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch , Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents

(9) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1690/2020

Mohanram S/o Aasuram, Aged About 64 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

(6 of 9)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch , Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents

(10) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1691/2020

Smt.Kavrai W/o Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 55 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Village Paladi Ranavata, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ramjan Ahmed @ Mohammad Ramjan S/o Maulabaksh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

2. Mohammad Akram S/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhisti Musalman, R/o House No. 84, Subhash Chok, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch , Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Engine No. Gub4G40525, Chassis No. B3G15978)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar. For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.D.Khatri.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

01/02/2021

Heard.

(7 of 9)

Issue notice.

Mr. L.D.Khatri, learned Panel counsel for Oriental Insurance

Company accepts the notice for respondent No.3.

On the request made by the counsel for the appellants for

dispensing with the service of notices upon respondents No.1 & 2,

the service of notice upon respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with

at his own risk and cost.

With the consent of counsel for the parties, the above

appeals are heard finally. Since, the issue involved in all these

appeals is identical, therefore, the same are being disposed of

finally by this common order.

The instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants-

claimants against the judgment dated 12.02.2020 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur in Motor Accident

Claims case Nos. 221/2012, 220/2012, 217/2012, 214/2012,

216/2012, 215/2012, 218/2012, 212/2012, 223/2012 &

222/2012.

The only point canvassed before this court by learned

counsel for the appellants is that the local counsel appearing for

the appellants-claimants pleaded 'No Instructions' before the

tribunal in the claim petitions, therefore, taking into consideration

'No instructions" pleaded by the counsel, learned Tribunal simply

dismissed the claim petitions vide its judgment dated 12.02.2020.

He further submits that the claim petitions of the appellants have

been dismissed without properly adjudicating the same and

without hearing the appellants. It is also contended that in para

13 of the judgment, the fact of pleading 'No instructions' has been

(8 of 9)

noted by the Tribunal and in para 65 of the judgment, the claim

petitions have been dismissed. He further submits that the

Insurance Company has also filed certain appeals being S.B.Civil

Misc. Appeal Nos.1349/2020, 1348/2020, 1351/2020 &

1352/2020 arising out of the same accident and the batch of the

appeals has been dismissed by this court vide order dated

24.08.2020.

Mr. L.D.Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company fairly submits that a plain reading of para 13 and 65 of

the impugned judgment clearly shows that the appellants-

claimants were not given any proper opportunity of hearing before

dismissing their claim petitions. He also admits that the appeals

preferred by the Insurance Company have been dismissed by this

court vide order dated 24.08.2020.

Having considered the submissions made at the bar, I am of

the view that from perusal of findings recorded by the Tribunal in

para 13 and 65 of its judgment, it is apparent that the local

counsel who was appearing in the claim petitions before the

tribunal had pleaded 'No instructions' and therefore, it was

incumbent upon the Tribunal to serve a notice upon the

appellants- claimants. Since, the counsel for the appellants has

vehemently submitted that no notice was ever received by the

appellants-claimants, this court feels that the matter requires

reconsideration by the tribunal, therefore, the judgment dated

12.02.2020 passed by the Tribunal against the appellants-

claimants is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to reconsider the

claim petitions of the appellants after giving them reasonable

(9 of 9)

opportunity of hearing. Needless to say that the award is required

to be computed and awarded to the appellants strictly in

accordance with law, as per their entitlement.

In view of above direction, the above appeals are disposed

of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

17-26 Anil Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)