The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Vani Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 14519 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2231/2022 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., T.p. Claims Hub, Divisional Office-1St, Abhay Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur Through Its Authorized Representative.

----Appellant Versus

1. Vani Devi W/o Late Sh. Hansa Ram, By Caste Rebari (Dewasi) R/o Village Aalpa, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.

2. Yogesh Rebari S/o Late Sh. Hansa Ram, (Minor) Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Vani Devi, By Caste Rebari (Dewasi) R/o Village Aalpa, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.

3. Prabhu Ram S/o Saroopa Ji, By Caste Rebari (Dewasi) R/ o Village Aalpa, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.

4. Smt. Rati Bai W/o Prabhu Ram Ji, By Caste Rebari (Dewasi) R/o Village Aalpa, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.

5. Bharat Singh S/o Balwant Singh Rajput, R/o Village Balana, Ps Takhatgarh, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali, (Driver Cum Possession Holder)

6. Kavish Jain S/o Daya Chand Ji Jain, R/o House No. 377/1, Panchwati Circle, Raja Park, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

       (Registered Owner)
                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas
For Respondent(s)        :     -



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

09/12/2022

1. The vehicle involved in the accident was stolen for which an

FIR was lodged by the owner of the vehicle on 12.11.2016.

Thereafter on 06.12.2016, the vehicle in question met with an

accident, while the same was being driven by Bharat Singh -

respondent No.5.

(2 of 3) [CMA-2231/2022]

2. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in

the facts of present case, it cannot be said that the stolen vehicle

was being used under the instructions of the owner of the vehicle,

namely, Kavish Jain. He, thus argued that neither Kavish Jain can

be held vicariously liable for the fault of respondent No.5 nor can

the appellant insurance Company be directed to pay the award

amount to the claimants as the appellant insurance company is

found to indemnify the insured alone, as per the terms of policy.

3. In support of his argument, Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the

appellant relies upon judgment dated 01.11.2007, passed by this

Court in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.131/1991 (Rani Devi @

Usha Rani & Ors. V. Devi Lal & Ors.)

4. On the general principles, what has been submitted by Mr.

Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant is correct, but in the prima

- facie opinion of this Court, if such strict view of the policy

condition is taken, it would be inequitous and adversely affect the

rights of the claimants.

5. Though the tribunal has given the appellant a right to

recover the amount from respondent No.5, but the matter

requires consideration.

6. Admit. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also,

returnable within six weeks.

7. Meanwhile, in case the Appellant Insurance Company

deposits 50 per cent of the award amount (after deducting the

amount already paid) and extent thereupon, the recovery of

remaining amount shall remain stayed.

8. It will, however, be open for the claimants to proceed

against the respondent No.5 - Bharat Singh, the driver of the

(3 of 3) [CMA-2231/2022]

vehicle for the recovery of the remaining 50 per cent amount in

accordance with law.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 7-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)