Lakhvinddra Singh vs Hakam Singh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8221 Raj

(1 of 5) [CMA-567/2004]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 567/2004

1. National Insurance Co Ltd. Sriganganagar.

2. National Insurance Co Ltd. 3 Middleton street Kolkata. Both through Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Residency Road, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus

1. Mukhtiyar Singh s/o Mala Singh, Kambo Sikh, r/o 90, Near Sethia Farm, Sriganganganagar.

Applicant

2. Hakam Singh s/o Shri Tek Singh @ Tara Singh, b/c Jat Sikh, r/o 1 L.L.P., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

Driver of Jeep

3. Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Harji Ram, b/c Jat, r/o Ward No. 15 Suratgarh at present Rangmahal, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar Owner of Jeep

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 642/2004

1. National Insurance Co Ltd. Sriganganagar.

2. National Insurance Co Ltd. 3 Middleton street Kolkata. Both through Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Residency Road, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus

1. Mukhtiyar Singh s/o Mala Singh, b/c Kambo Sikh, r/o 90, Near Sethia Farm, Sriganganganagar.

Applicant

2. Hakam Singh s/o Shri Tek Singh @ Tara Singh, b/c Jat Sikh, r/o 1 L.L.P., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

Driver of Jeep

3. Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Harji Ram, b/c Jat, r/o Ward No. 15 Suratgarh at present Rangmahal, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar Owner of Jeep

----Respondent

(2 of 5) [CMA-567/2004]

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1609/2004

Lakhvinddra Singh s/o Mukhtiyar Singh aged 41 years b/c Kambo Sikh, r/o 90, Near Sethia Farm, Sriganganganagar.

----Appellant Versus

1. Hakam Singh s/o Shri Tek Singh @ Tara Singh, b/c Jat Sikh, r/o 1 L.L.P., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

2. Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Harji Ram, b/c Jat, r/o Ward No. 15 Suratgarh at present Rangmahal, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar

3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Manager Suratgarh, Sri Ganganganagar

4. National Insurance Co Ltd. 3 Middlton street calcutta. Through its Divisional Manager, Sri Ganganagar and Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1610/2004

Mukhtiyar Singh s/o Mala Singh, age 69 yearb/c Kambo Sikh, r/o 90, Near Setia Farm, Sriganganganagar.

----Appellant Versus

1. Hakam Singh s/o Tek Singh @ Tara Singh, b/c Jat Sikh, r/o 1 L.L.P., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

2. Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Harji Ram, b/c Jat, r/o Ward No. 15 Suratgarh at present Rangmahal, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar

3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Manager Suratgarh, Sri Ganganganagar

4. National Insurance Co Ltd. 3 Middlton street calcutta. Through its Divisional Manager, Sri Ganganagar and Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari Mr. Laleet Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Panwar Mr. Murli Sain for Mr. Rajesh Panwar

(3 of 5) [CMA-567/2004]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

25/03/2021 Since, all the abovementioned four appeals arise out of a

common judgment dated 17.09.2003. Therefore, the same are

being disposed of by this common judgment.

The S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 567/2004 and S.B. Civil Misc.

Appeal No. 642/2004 have been preferred by the National

Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated

17.09.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Srikaranpur in M.A.C. Case No. 91/97 (33/96) and 92/97 (34/96).

Whereas, the appeal Nos. 1609/2004 and 1610/2004 have been

preferred by the claimants Lakhvinddra Singh and Mukhtiyar Singh

respectively seeking enhancement of the compensation amount

awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries suffered by

them in the accident which occurred on 02.03.1993.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, partly

allowed the claim petition of the respondents/claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company

submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 6 is

contrary to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases

of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balkrishnan &

anr. reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731 as well as Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal reported in (2007) 7

SCC 425 and the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Bench of

this Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd.

(4 of 5) [CMA-567/2004]

Vs. Smt. Sahidan Bano reported in 2015(2) R.A.R. 892 (Raj.)

as well as The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.

Sharda Devi & ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 696/2003)

decided on 04.08.2016. He, therefore, submits that the

direction of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the Insurance

Company to pay the compensation is liable to be quashed and set

aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents

submits that it is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was

insured with the appellant - Insurance Company and the fact of

accident was also duly proved before the Tribunal, therefore, the

injuries suffered by the respondents/claimants in the accident

were rightly ordered to be compensated by the Insurance

Company.

Learned counsel for the claimants without joining the issues

on the merit of the case has offered a proposal that the claimants

would be satisfied if the Insurance Company is directed to

compensate by paying Rs. 20,000 to Lakhvinddra Singh and Rs.

15,000/- to Mukhtiyar Singh in addition to the amount already

awarded by the Tribunal.

The proposal given by the learned counsel for the claimants

is accepted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company

however, with a caveat that this should not be treated as a

precedent in any other cases.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the Judgment and Award dated 17.09.2003.

It is noted that the accident occurred in the year 1993 and

since then, the matter is pending consideration before the courts

(5 of 5) [CMA-567/2004]

of law. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law that if the

insured vehicle is under the 'act only' policy then the risk of the

occupants of the insured vehicle is not covered in the light of the

judgments relied upon by the counsel for the Insurance Company.

In view of the judgments cited above, Insurance Comapny is

not liable to pay the amount of compensation and in these

circumstances the amount paid by the Insurance Company to the

respondents/claimants shall be recoverable from the owner/driver

of the vehicle.

To meet the ends of justice in the present case, the present

appeals preferred by the appellants are disposed of by giving a

direction to the Insurance Company to pay an amount of

Rs. 20,000 to Lakhvinddra Singh and Rs. 15,000/- to Mukhtiyar

Singh in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal

towards the full and final settlement of the case within a period of

eight weeks and recover the same from driver and owner.

Record may be sent back forthwith.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

6-9Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)