Cholamandalam Ms General ... vs Seema
2022 Latest Caselaw 14399 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1045/2022

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Jodhpur Office At K.p. Tower, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur Through Its Authorized Representative.

----Appellant Versus

1. Seema W/o Late Sh. Manoj Chhajed., R/o 5Th Road Shakti Nagar, Paota C-Road, Jodhpur.

2. Hardik S/o Late Sh. Manoj Chhajed, (Now Major) R/o 5Th Road Shakti Nagar, Paota C-Road, Jodhpur.

3. Tejor Kathat S/o Sh. Lala Kathat, R/o Village Uttami, Tehsil Masuda, Distt. Ajmer. (Tavera Driver)

4. Sanwra S/o Harchand, R/o House No. 227, Near Chowk, Village Makarwali, Distt. Ajmer. (Tavera Owner)

5. Dev Kishan Joshi S/o Tulsi Ram Joshi, R/o House No. 37, Gandhi Nagar, Magrapunjla, Jodhpur. (Driver Of Honda City)

6. Chandra Prakash Totla S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal Totla, R/o House No. 75 Sarvaritu Villas, Ward No. 39, Udaipur (Owner Of Honda City Car)

7. Sh. Hastimal S/o Prem Raj Chhajed, R/o Vilage Chadi, Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur.

8. Smt. Maina Devi W/o Sh. Hastimal Chhajed, R/o Vilage Chadi, Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Jagdish Vyas
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Gaurav Maru
                               Mr. Ayush Gehlot

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

07/12/2022

(2 of 3) [CMA-1045/2022]

Learned counsel for the appellant-insruance company

submits that there is no iota of evidence in the present case to

establish that there was any contribution of the driver Tavera car

towards accident and as per the oral as well as the documentary

evidence available on record, it clearly establishes that the

accident took place on account of sole negligence on the part of

the driver of the Honda City Car. Learned counsel thus submitted

that the claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation

under Section 166 of the MV Act from the appellant-insurance

company being the insurer of Tavera Car.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-

claimants supported the judgment and award passed by the

learned tribunal and submits that the learned tribunal has passed

the impugned judgment and award in accordance with law. It is

submitted that the eye witness AW-2 stated in his statement that

there was negligence on the part of the driver of the Tavera Car.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents-

claimants relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

delivered in the case of TO Anthony Vs. Karvaran & Ors (Appeal

(Civil) No.1082/2008), decided on 1.2.2008.

Matter requires consideration.

Admit. No need to issue notice to the respondents-claimants

nos.1 and 2 as Mr. Gaurav Maru and Mr. Ayush Gehlot, learned

counsel appearing for them.

At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the

service upon respondents nos.7 and 8 is dispensed with.

Let notices be issued to the respondents nos.3 to 6. Issue

notice of the stay application also, returnable within six weeks.

(3 of 3) [CMA-1045/2022]

Till then, effect and operation of the impugned judgment and

award dated 29.4.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Motor Accident

Claim Case No.209/2014 shall remain stayed qua the appellant-

insurance company.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 13-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)