United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Narendra @ Hitesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9454 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1544/2020

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Manager (Legal Hub) 74, N Bhati Plaza Building Pal Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Narendra @ Hitesh S/o Late Shri Natwar Lal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Banoda Tehsil Salumber District Udaipur (Rajasthan)

2. Jagdish S/o Late Shri Natwar Lal, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Banoda Tehsil Salumber District Udaipur (Rajasthan)

3. Smt. Nirmala W/o Ashok, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Bodigama Bada Tehsil Ashpur District Dungarpur.

4. Smt. Mammata W/o Vastu Pal, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Bodigama Bada Tehsil Ashpur District Dungarpur.

5. Smt. Geeta W/o Jayanti Lal, Aged About 37 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Dagara Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur (Rajasthan)

6. Sanjay Kumar S/o Keseri Mal Jain, R/o Aashputehsi Aashpur District Dungarpur (Driver Of The Vehicle)

7. Vidhya Niketan Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Kheda, Aashpur, Through Head Of The Institution / Head Master/ Director Gajendra Singh S/o Devi Singh Rajput, R/o Kheda Aashpur, District Dungarpur (Rajasthan) (Registered Owner Vehicle Involve In Accident)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jayant Joshi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order

20/07/2022 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance

Company submits that the learned Tribunal has passed a very

(2 of 3) [CMA-1544/2020]

exorbitantly high award. It is also submitted that at the time of

accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid

permit to drive the vehicle and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court delivered in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Ors.

vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.

2253/2018) decided on 17.05.2018, the appellant-Insurance

Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the awarded amount.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the

impugned award and no interference is called for in the same. In

support of his contentions learned counsel has relied upon the

judgment of this Court delievered in the case of RK College vs.

Ramesh Chand and Ors. (2007) 2 DNJ 1084.

The matter requires consideration.

Heard.

Admit.

Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel appears for the

respondent-claimants No. 1 to 5.

Issue notice to the respondent Nos. 6 & 7. Issue notice of

stay application also, returnable within six weeks.

Call for the record.

Heard on stay application.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it

is considered appropriate and hence ordered that in the

meanwhile if the appellant deposits 60% of the award amount,

along with the interest as mentioned in the impugned award

before the Tribunal within a period of one month, the recovery of

(3 of 3) [CMA-1544/2020]

the remaining amount under the impugned award dated

07.03.2020 shall remain stayed.

The deposited amount may be disbursed to the claimants in

the manner and proportion as contemplated in the impugned

award with the undertaking that if the appellant in the present

appeal succeeds, he/she/they shall refund the same alongwith

interest in accordance with law.

It is made clear that the amount previously deposited by the

appellant, if any, shall be adjusted towards the said amount.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 17-neha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)