Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tata Aig General Insurance Company vs Smt. Veshati (2025:Rj-Jd:7520) on 6 February, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:7520]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1220/2024
Tata AIG General Insurance Company, Through Manager, Branch
Office Address A. 501, 5Th Floor, Building No. 4, Infinity Park,
Dindhoshi Mallad (E) Mumbai, Maharastra.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Veshati W/o Sh. Bhera Laur, R/o Jhanjhar Ki Pal,
Thobawada, Teh Kotada, Dist Udaipur, Raj.
2. Pappu Lal S/o Late Shri Bhera Laur, R/o Jhanjhar Ki Pal,
Thobawada, Teh Kotada, Dist Udaipur, Raj.
3. Laxman S/o Late Sh. Bhera Laur, R/o Jhanjhar Ki Pal,
Thobawada, Teh Kotada, Dist Udaipur, Raj.
4. Chetandas S/o Meghdas Gamar, Ro Nichala Aamda, Teh
Jhadol, Dist Udaipur. (Driver Of Offending Jeep Regi. No.
Gj-01-Hg8084)
5. Naka S/o Homa Sarpota, R/o Kherad, Teh Jhadol, Dist
Udaipur. (Owner Of Offending Jeep Regi. No. Gj-01-
Hg8084)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal with
Ms. Anamika Baghmar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
06/02/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and
award dated 15.12.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
No.2, Udaipur in MAC Case No.33/2023 (CIS No.477/2021)
whereby the learned Tribunal proceeded on to award an amount of
Rs.5,24,200/- in favour of the claimants.
[2025:RJ-JD:7520] (2 of 3) [CMA-1220/2024]
2. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company
submits that the learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No.2,
erroneously observed that the policy in question was a
'comprehensive policy' whereas the same was an 'act only policy'.
Counsel submits that the learned Tribunal erroneously
observed that in cases of a comprehensive and package policy, the
person travelling in the vehicle would also be termed to be a third
party and hence, the Insurance Company would be liable for the
same.
3. Counsel for the respondent-claimants could not refute the
submission as made by counsel for the appellant to the extent
that the policy in question was not a 'comprehensive policy' but an
'act only policy'.
However he submits that the policy did cover the liability to
the extent of 10 persons.
4. Responding to the above argument, counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company submits that even if it is considered
that the policy covered the liability qua 10 persons, the same was
a limited liability to the extent of CSI (Capital Sum Insured) per
person, that is, Rs.30,000/- per person.
5. In view of the submissions made and in view of the admitted
fact that the policy in question was not a 'comprehensive policy',
this Court is of the opinion that the matter deserves to be
remanded to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh on issue
No.2.
6. So far as the quantum of the compensation amount is
concerned, counsel for the appellant waives his ground regarding
the same.
[2025:RJ-JD:7520] (3 of 3) [CMA-1220/2024]
7. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present appeal is
partly allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned
Tribunal for decision afresh on issue No.2 that is, the issue of
liability only.
8. So far as the award amount is concerned, the same is
affirmed and the learned Tribunal shall not be under an obligation
to decide and compute the same afresh.
9. The learned Tribunal shall be under an obligation to provide
opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and thereupon
pass an order afresh qua the issue of liability.
10. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
210-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
