Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Gawari Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:2378) on 14 January, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:2378]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3083/2024
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its T.p. Hub,
Divisional Office, 537-B, Bhansali Tower, Residency Road,
Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Gawari Devi W/o Pappu Ram @ Pappa Ram Bhil, R/o
Kalmo Ki Dhani, Village Kudi, Teh. Pachpadra, Dist.
Barmer.
2. Pappu Ram @ Pappa Ram S/o Suja Ram Bhil, R/o Kalmo
Ki Dhani, Village Kudi, Teh. Pachpadra, Dist. Barmer.
3. Suraj Prakash Jangid S/o Sh. Sagar Ram Jangid, R/o
Sadar Bazaar, Raas Jaitaran, Teh. Jaitaran, Dist. Pali.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2914/2024
1. Gavri Devi W/o Papuram @ Papaaram, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Kalmo Ki Dhani, Kudi, Teh. Pachpadra.
2. Papuram @ Papaaram S/o Sujaram, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Kalmo Ki Dhani, Kudi,teh. Pachpadra.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Surajprakash Jangid S/o Sagarram Jangid, R/o Sadar
Bazar, Ras Jaitaran, Teh. Jaitaran, Dist. Pali, Raj.
2. Oreintal Ins. Co. Ltd., 637/b, Bhansali Tower, 4Th Floor,
Residency Road, Jodhpur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas in S.B. Civil
Misc. Appeal No. 3083/2024
Mr. Ravi Panwar in S.B. Civil Misc.
Appeal No. 2914/2024
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar in S.B. Civil Misc.
Appeal No. 3083/2024
Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas in S.B. Civil
Misc. Appeal No. 2914/2024
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
14/01/2025
1. The present appeals have been filed against the impugned
award and judgment dated 11.07.2024 passed by Motor Accident
[2025:RJ-JD:2378] (2 of 4) [CMA-3083/2024]
Claims Tribunal (Family Court), Balotra in Motor Accident Claim
Case No.220/2022 (CIS No.32/2023) whereby the learned
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.11,56,170/- with interest at the
rate of 7% per annum in favour of the claimants.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3083/2024
1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-
Insurance Company challenging the award in question, on the
ground that the policy in question had been obtained by the owner
concealing the fact that the vehicle in question was already
insured with Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited
which policy was in effect till 20.08.2022.
2. Learned counsel submits that the present policy in question
was issued for the period from 14.08.2022 to 13.08.2023 meaning
thereby, the vehicle had already been insured for the relevant
time with Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. Had the
said fact been brought to the knowledge of the Insurance
Company, the policy in question would have been issued only with
effect from the date after the expiry of the earlier policy.
3. Per contra learned counsel for the claimants submitted that
the policy which was supplied by the owner of the vehicle in
question in the criminal proceedings was only obtained and placed
on record by the claimants in the present appeal. The said policy
having been issued by the Insurance Company, it was impleaded
in the claim petition by the claimants.
Counsel further submitted that the issuance of the policy in
question by the Insurance Company having not been denied, it
was rightly held liable.
[2025:RJ-JD:2378] (3 of 4) [CMA-3083/2024]
4. Heard learned counsels and perused the reply as filed by the
Insurance Company before the Tribunal (placed on record by
learned counsel for the appellant today).
5. A bare perusal of the reply as filed by the Insurance
Company reflects that the ground as averred before this Court was
not even raised in its pleadings on behalf of the Insurance
Company. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the
said ground cannot be permitted to be raised before this Court.
6. Further, the fact of there being one more policy in existence
for the relevant period would even otherwise not be of any
consequence. So far as the present claim petition is concerned,
the issuance of the policy by the Insurance Company is not
denied.
Further, it cannot be concluded that the owner concealed any
fact to procure any unlawful gain or benefit. Futhermore, the
concealment, if any, cannot be of any consequence so far as the
liability of the respondent Insurance Company is concerned.
7. No other ground has been raised on behalf of the appellant-
Insurance Company.
8. In view of the above observations, this Court does not find
any ground to interfere with the finding on issue Nos.1 and 3 as
recorded by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is hence, dismissed.
9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2914/2024
1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellants-claimants for enhancement of the compensation
amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for
[2025:RJ-JD:2378] (4 of 4) [CMA-3083/2024]
the appellant-claimants submits that the learned Tribunal
erroneously considered the income of the deceased @ Rs.6,734/-
per month on basis of the minimum wages for an unskilled labour.
The deceased being an educated person, the wages atleast of a
semi-skilled labour ought to have been considered by the learned
Tribunal.
2. No other ground has been raised by the counsel.
3. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award reflects
that no document in support of either qualification of the deceased
or his income was placed on record on behalf of the claimants. In
absence of any document reflecting that the deceased was skilled
in any field, the learned Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court,
rightly considered the income of the deceased equivalent to that
of an unskilled labour.
4. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
finding recorded by the learned Tribunal.
5. The appeal is hence, dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J
20-21-Devanshi/Minki-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
