Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
National Insurance Company ... vs Stm. Tullchhi Devi And Ors on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 307/2000
National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Churu
through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company
Limited, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Tulchi Devi widow of Jetharam, by caste Regar, Resident
of Sujangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan)
2. Chhaganlal S/o Late Jetharam, by caste Regar, Resident of
Sujangarh, District Churu (Rajasdthan)
3. Rajendra Prasad son of Shobha Chand, by caste Nai, resident
of Padihara, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).
4. Manpal Singh S/o Nanu Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o. Rajiyasar,
Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan)
5. Smt. Rampyari W/o of Mansukhlal, by caste Regar, District
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
6. Dharam Chand Son of Late Jetharam, by caste Regar, R/o.
Sujangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).
7. Om Prakash S/o Late Jetharam, by caste Regar, R/o.
Sujangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan)
8. Smt. Deu W/o Chouthmal, by caste Regar, R/o. Churu
(Rajasthan).
9. Smt. Kamla W/o Dularam, by caste Regar, R/o. Ladnun,
District nagaur (Rajasthan).
10. Smt. Lichhama wife of Ratanlal Regar, resident of Ladnun,
District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Panwar on behalf of
Mr. Rajesh Panwar.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
02/02/2021
(2 of 3) [CMA-307/2000]
Despite service, no body has put in appearance on behalf of
the respondent No.4.
The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/Insurance
Company against the judgment and order dated 12/11/1999
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh in Claim
Case No.71/97.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there were
four more appeals arising out the same accident which were heard
and decided by common judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of
this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 34/1999 and three
connected appeals vide order dated 07/05/2010.
This Court, while deciding these appeals has held in para
Nos.13 and 14 under as under :-
"13. In my opinion, looking to the nature of facts of
this case i.e. accident occurred in 1990 and the fact
that there was a breach of term of policy though
technical in nature and the law laid down by
Supreme Court in Swaran Singh's case and two more
decisions relied on by this Court as taken note of
supra were rendered in 2007 and then in 2008 by
settling the legal position, the Tribunal did not have
occasion to decide the issue in the light of the law
subsequently laid down on the issue. In such cases,
their Lordships have in appropriate cases even
without taking recourse to powers under Article 142,
had directed the Insurance Company to first satisfy
the award in favour of claimants and then recover
the awarded sum from the insured. I prefer to give
this indulgence in favour of claimants in this case.
14. In view of foregoing discussions, the appeal
succeed and is allowed. Impugned award is modified
in favour of insurance company to the extent that
insurance company would first deposit the entire
awarded sum (including what is awarded by this
Court) in Tribunal and on such deposit being made
will be entitled to recover the entire awarded sum
from the insured in these very proceedings."
(3 of 3) [CMA-307/2000]
For the same reasons, the present appeal is also allowed.
The appellant/Insurance Company will pay the compensation as
ordered by the Tribunal in its order dated 12/11/1999 and the
same can be recovered from the insured in these very
proceedings.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
172-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
