The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Bhawana Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 11883 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1849/2020

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Through Divisional Manager, Bhansali Tower, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Bhawana Devi W/o Late Sh. Deva Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gangasara Bandha, Tehsil Sevda, District Barmer.

2. Ku. Kiran D/o Late Sh. Deva Ram, Aged About 6 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No.

1. R/o Gangasara Bandha, Tehsil Sevda, District Barmer.

3. Prithvi Raj S/o Late Sh. Deva Ram, Aged About 4 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No.

1. R/o Gangasara Bandha, Tehsil Sevda, District Barmer.

4. Ku. Javati D/o Late Sh. Deva Ram, Aged About 2 Years, Age 2.5 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1. R/o Gangasara Bandha, Tehsil Sevda, District Barmer.

5. Teja Ram S/o Sh. Varjang Ram, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Gangasara Bandha, Tehsil Sevda, District Barmer.

6. Smt. Luni W/o Teja Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Gangasara Bandha, Tehsil Sevda, District Barmer.

7. Gurusevak Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o Tolabal, Police Station Chima, District Sangrur (Punjab) (Driver)

8. Jharmal Singh S/o Sh. Baru Singh, R/o Nangala, Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur (Punjab) (Owner)

----Respondents

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

29/07/2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel

appearing on caveat.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant with the

reference to the report obtained from the Regional Transport

(2 of 2) [CMA-1849/2020]

Authority, Sangrur (Punjab) that the driver was not in possession

of a valid driving licence and the driving licence (Ex.11) produced

is fake.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that

amount of compensation awarded for loss of Filial consortium in

view of judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.

v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.: (2017) 16 SCC 680 is in excess of what

has been laid down by the Constitution Bench.

In view of the submissions made, issue notice of the appeal

as well as application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to the

respondents.

Learned counsel Mr. Ravi Panwar appears for respondent

Nos.1 to 6. Issue notice to respondent Nos.7 & 8 only.

Heard on stay application.

During pendency of the present appeal, if the appellant -

Insurance Company makes payment of a sum of Rs. 11,80,000/-

alongwith interest as awarded by the Tribunal, after taking into

consideration any amount deposited under Section 140 and/or

proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the rest

of the award shall remain stayed.

The stay application stands disposed of.

Record as received from the Tribunal, be sent back with the

directions to return back the record, once the amount to be

deposited by the appellant - Insurance Company, is disbursed to

the claimants.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 102-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)