Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Iffco Tokio General Insurance ... vs Emno on 15 July, 2022
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 636/2022
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Iffco House, 3Rd
Floor, 34 Nehru Palace, New Delhi. Branch Office At 2Nd Floor
Bhagwati Bhawan, Goverment Hostel Crossing, M I Road, Jaipur
302001 Through Its Authorized Representative.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Emno W/o Late Sh. Taj Mohammad, B/c Muslim R/o
Village Kalra, Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur.
2. Hanuman Ram S/o Prithvi Raj Bishnoi, R/o Hapu Ki Dhani,
Bhalni, Tehsil Bagauda, Distt. Jalore. (Owner Of Car No.
Rj-46-Ca-0497)
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Tp Claims Hub, Abhay
Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. (Insurer Of Car No. Rj-
46-Ca-0497)
4. Sultan Khan S/o Hasan Khan, B/c Muslim R/o Village
Kalra, Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur. (Owner Of Jeep No.
Rj-19-C-8731)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
15/07/2022
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
on stay application.
The instant Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short)
has been preferred against the judgment and award dated
17.11.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Phalodi, District Jodhpur in MACT Case No.60/2016
(2 of 3) [CMA-636/2022]
(63/2016), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.4,48,113/-and held appellant-Insurance
company liable for the same jointly and severally with other non-
applicants.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
challenging the impugned judgment and award submits that the
policy was on "an Act on policy" and, therefore, the liability of the
appellant- Insurance Company only is to cover the risk of a third
party. It is also submitted that the claimant being the occupant of
the vehicle in question cannot be construed as a third party. The
fact of the matter remains that the claimant was a gratuitous
passenger.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
appellant-insurance company relied upon the following
judgments:-
(1) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal and
Others reported in 2007 ACJ 1284.
(2) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sudhakaran K.V. Vs.
Others (Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 2008) decided on
16.05.2008.
(3) General Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M.
Laxmi & Others reported in 2009 DNJ (SC) 89.
(4) Leeladhar Vs. Mahendra Singh and Others (S.B. Civil
Misc. Appeal No.211/2002) decided on 18.02.2021.
(5) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Narsingh
Tanwar and Another (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.658/2021)
decided on 15.11.2021.
(6) The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Panchi Devi
and Other (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2995/2018) decided on
3.11.2018.
(7) United India Insurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur Vs. Smt.
Hudi and others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.765/2010)
decided on 3.12.2013.
(3 of 3) [CMA-636/2022]
Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company that the effect and operation of the impugned
judgment may be stayed.
I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in
dispute that the insurance policy was only on "an Act on Policy"
and the claimant herself was one of the occupants of the vehicle.
The matter requires consideration.
Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Issue notice of the
stay application also, returnable within a period of six weeks.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, meanwhile effect,
operation and execution of the judgment and award dated
17.11.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Phalodi in MACT Case No.60/2016 (63/2016) shall
remain stayed qua the appellant-Insurance Company.
Call for the record.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
9-Bharti/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
