Gaurav Mewara vs Uttam Damami (2024:Rj-Jd:36844)
2024 Latest Caselaw 7705 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gaurav Mewara vs Uttam Damami (2024:Rj-Jd:36844) on 4 September, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:36844]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1177/2022

1.       Gaurav Mewara S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 37
         Years, R/o Baldev Singh Colony, Wherehouse Road,
         Sumerpur, Distt. Pali (Raj.). (Owner Of Bus No. RJ-22-PA-
         0571)
2.       Sona Ram S/o Shri Veera Ji, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
         Meghwalon-Ka-Bas, Sumerpur, Tehsil Sumerpur, Distt.
         Pali. (Rajasthan.) (Driver Of Bus No. RJ-22-PA-0571)
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                     Versus
1.       Uttam Damami S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 12 Years,
         Through His Natural Guardian His Father Shri Mohan Lal
         S/o Shri Chhoga Ram, R/o Village Sedariya Balotan, Tehsil
         Aahor, Distt. Jalore (Raj.)
2.       United India Insurance Company Ltd., One-Way Road,
         Jalore (Raj.) (Insurer Of Bus No. RJ-22-PA-0571)
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Leeladhar Khatri


               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order 04/09/2024

1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the

validity and legality of the judgment/award dated 17.02.2024

passed by the learned Judge, MACT (Family Court), Jalore in MAC

Case No.78/2017 whereby, claim petition of the

claimant/respondent No.1 was allowed and the Insurance

Company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation and

recover the same from the appellants herein.

2. Learned counsel representing the parties jointly submit that

the temporary permit, which is in dispute, is in contradiction

inasmuch as cash receipt-cum-temporary permit dated

13.10.2013 bears validity from 18.10.2013 for one day, and below

[2024:RJ-JD:36844] (2 of 2) [CMA-1177/2022]

the said temporary permit, additional date i.e. 13.10.2013 is also

mentioned. The appellants had filed an application under Order 41

Rule 27 CPC for taking the cash receipt-cum-temporary permit

dated 13.10.2013 on record in which, validity of permit has been

mentioned as 13.10.2013 for one day.

3. This Court is of the view that since there is discrepancy in

the dates mentioned in the two cash receipts-cum-temporary

permits and the issue pertains that whether the offending vehicle

was having a valid permit or not on the date of accident thus, it

would be appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the

learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is directed to

decide the issue No.3 afresh qua the issue that whether the

offending vehicle was having a valid temporary permit in its favour

on the date of accident after calling the original record from the

concerning office of the RTO.

4. As far as the award dated 13.10.2013 in respect to issue

No.3 is concerned, the same is quashed and set aside qua the

issue of whether the offending vehicle was having a valid permit

on the date of accident or not. The matter is remanded back to

the learned MACT (Family Court), Jalore for deciding the issue

No.3 in the order dated 13.10.2013 afresh in as far as validity of

the permit of the offending vehicle is concerned.

5. The instant misc. appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Stay

application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed of.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

205-/Devesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)