Smt. Durga Devi vs Lalit
2023 Latest Caselaw 9145 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37754]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9884/2019

1. Smt. Durga Devi W/o Babulal, Aged 44 Years, Resident Of Naya Bera, Bheru Ji Ki Taper, Tilji Ka Bera, Jetiwas Road, Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Babulal S/o Daglaram,, Aged 49 Years, Resident Of Naya Bera, Bheru Ji Ki Taper, Tilji Ka Bera, Jetiwas Road, Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. Lalit S/o Chagnaram, By Caste Sargara, Resident Of Kumharo Ka Bas, Sojati Gate, Biara, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

(owner and driver of Three Wheeler Taxi RJ 19 GE8657)

2. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd, Nk Tower First Floor, Plot No. 49, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). (Insurer Of Three Wheeler Taxi RJ 19 GE8657)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. TS Champawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. TRS Sodha

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

Judgment Reserved on <> 03.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement <> 06.11.2023

1. The matter has been listed in the category of 'for orders'.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is

heard finally, today itself.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

"a) That the order passed passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (First) Jodhpur dated

[2023:RJ-JD:37754] (2 of 5) [CW-9884/2019]

10/06/2019 Annex.7, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

b) that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Annex.4 be dismissed.

c) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble High court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

d) That the petitioners may be awarded the cost of the litigation."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's son Rakesh

met with an accident with a three wheeler taxi bearing

Registration No. RJ-19-GE-8657 driven by respondent No.1 on

22.01.2017. The petitioner's son passed away on 23.01.2017 and

an FIR was lodged against the respondent No.1 and the trial is

pending. Alongwith the challan, the Police filed a copy of the

insurance cover note which was procured by the petitioner and

thus the petitioner came to know of the insurance of three wheeler

taxi on account of which the accident took place. The petitioners

filed a motor accident claim No.535/2017 before the learned

Tribunal. After service of summons, the respondent-insurer

preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deletion of

its name from the array of respondents. The petitioners filed reply

to the application and denied all the averments made therein. The

learned Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the application

vide order dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure-7). The petitioner being

aggrieved of the same, preferred the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

learned Tribunal without ascertaining that whether the insurance

policy placed on record by the petitioners is forged or not,

[2023:RJ-JD:37754] (3 of 5) [CW-9884/2019]

proceeded to delete the name of respondent-insurer from the

array of respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners also

submitted that on the one hand the learned Tribunal has ordered

for deleting the name of respondent-insurer and on the other hand

has granted liberty to the petitioners to place evidence in respect

to the insurance policy placed on record by them and thus, the

learned Tribunal was not certain whether the policy produced by

the petitioners was forged or not and thus, the impugned order

dated 10.06.2019 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal (First), Jodhpur deserved to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel also submitted that if it is claimed by the insurer

that the vehicle involved in the accident is not insured by him and

the policy relied upon by the claimant is forged then, it was

required that the learned Tribunal ought to have called for

evidence in this respect and thereafter the issue could have been

decided. Learned counsel also submitted that the insurance

certificate placed on record by the petitioners could be procured

by them from the charge-sheet filed by the concerned authorities

in the criminal case pending against respondent No.1. He also

submitted that the same insurance certificate was filed by the

respondent owner and the trial Court after relying upon the

genuineness of the said certificate had ordered for the release of

the vehicle which shows that the insurance certificate is a genuine

and valid document.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurer

vehemently submitted that they have preferred the application

under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC while submitting that the insurance

[2023:RJ-JD:37754] (4 of 5) [CW-9884/2019]

policy No.2317200834548400000 relied upon by the petitioner for

the vehicle No.RJ-19-GE-8657 valid from 29.10.2016 to

28.10.2017 for 'Goods Carrying Vehicle Liability Only' for the

vehicle owner Lalit S/o Chagnaram resident of Kumharon ka bas,

Sojati Gate, Bilara is fake and not genuine as upon examining the

aforementioned insurance policy by the respondent No.2-insurer, it

came to knowledge that the said insurance policy was issued in

favour of one Pukhraj Lakhara S/o Sukh Ramji resident of

Khavaspura, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur for the vehicle

No.RJ-19 GA-0041 for the period 25.08.2014 to 24.08.2015 and

thus the insurance policy submitted by the petitioner is fake and

forged and in such case when the respondent No.2-insurer has not

issued the policy in favour of respondent No.1 Lalit then, in such

case, respondent No.2-insurer cannot be said to be a necessary

and proper party for adjudication of the claim petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. This Court cannot ascertain the fact that whether the policy

No.2317200834548400000 placed by the claimant petitioner

before the Tribunal is forged document or a valid document and

the Court below after examining the documents placed before it

has held that prima facie it has been found that the policy No.

No.2317200834548400000 has not been issued by the

respondent-insurer and has simultaneously afforded the petitioner

an opportunity to produce before the Court any evidence in

respect to prove before the Court the authenticity of the insurance

policy placed by the petitioner as well as the respondent-insurer.

[2023:RJ-JD:37754] (5 of 5) [CW-9884/2019]

8. Thus, in view of the above, no interference is called for in the

order dated 10/06/2019 (Annex.7) passed by learned Motor

Accident Claim Tribunal (First) Jodhpur and the writ petition is

dismissed being bereft of merits.

9. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand

dismissed.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 81-amit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)