Hdfc Ergo General Insurance ... vs Teeja
2022 Latest Caselaw 13027 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1903/2022

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd, Jodhpur Office At N.k. Tower, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur Through Its Authorized Representative.

----Appellant Versus

1. Teeja W/o Shri Rawatmal, By Caste Swami, R/o Village Sahawa, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

2. Batod Das S/o Shri Geeg Das, By Caste Swami, R/o Village Sahawa, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

3. Smt. Sita Devi W/o Shri Batod Das, By Caste Swami, R/o Village Sahawa, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

4. Goru Ram S/o Shri Govind Ram, R/o Village Dhirwas-

Bada, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu. (Driver Cum Owner)

----Respondents

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

04/11/2022

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

30.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge No.1, Rajgarh in MACT Case

No.374/2014 (97/2013), whereby the learned Tribunal has

awarded compensation of Rs.7,47,900/-and held appellant-

(2 of 3) [CMA-1903/2022]

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 only policy" and, therefore, the liability of

the appellant- Insurance Company is only to cover the risk of a

third party. It is also submitted that the claimants being the

occupants of the vehicle in question cannot be construed as a

third party. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no

premium was charged by the appellant-Insurance Company so as

to cover risk of the occupant. The fact of the matter remains that

the claimants were gratuitous passengers.

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-1903/2022]

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 an "Act only Policy" and

the claimants themselves were 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

30.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge No.1, Rajgarh in MACT Case

No.374/2014 (97/2013) shall remain stayed qua the appellant-

Insurance Company.

Call for the record.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 115-Bharti/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)