Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
I.C.I.C.I.Lombard G.I.C.Ltd vs Kushal And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:13565) on 11 March, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:13565]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1675/2013
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through its
office at Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai
(Maharashtra).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kushal son of Late paras Mal Mehta aged 23 years, resident
of Bapu Nagar, Seti Road No.9, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
2. Sunita Ratadiya wife of Rakesh Ratadiya daughte of Paras
Mal aged 30 years, resident of Nimach Road, Bari Sadri
District Chittorgarh, Raj.
3. Sarita Desrela wife of Rajesh Deshrela daughter of Paras
Mal aged 28 years, resident of Nai Abadi Mandsor (M.P.).
4. Sulekha Dakk wife of Bharat Dukk daughter of Paras Mal,
aged 26 years, resident of Chalthan District Surat
(Gujarat).
5. Saroj Mehta daughter of Paras Mal aged 24 years, resident
of Dngla Tehsil & District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
6. Vardi Chand son of Late Manak Chand aged 86 years,
resident of Dungla Tehsil & District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
(Deceased).
7. Heri Bai wife of Vardi Chand resident of Dungla Tehsil &
District Chittorgarh (Raj.) (Deceased).
----Claimants.
8. Krishan Kumar sonof Pyare Lal, resident of Plot No.226,
Sector 1-A, Gandhi Dham, Kachh (Gujarat) (vehicle
owner).
9. Ratan Lal son of Kishan Kharol residnet of Kalyan Pur tehsil
Shah Pura, District Bhilwara (Driver of Truck).
----Non-claimants.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1914/2013
1. Kushal son of Late Parasmal Ji, aged about 28 years,
resident of 15-A, Bapunagar, Senthi, Road No.9, District
Chittorgarh.
2. Sunita Ratadiya wife of Rakesh Ratadiya daughter of Late
Parasmal Ji, aged about 35 years, resident of Saal Nimach
Road, Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh.
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:44:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13565] (2 of 4) [CMA-1675/2013]
3. Sarita Desrala wife of Rajesh Desrala daughter of Late
Parasmal Ji, aged about 33 years, resident of Nai Abadi,
Mandsaur (M.P.).
4. Sulekha Dak wie of Bharat Dak daughter of Late Parasmal
Ji, aged about 31 years, resident of Chalthan, District Surat
(Gujarat).
5. Miss Saroj Mehta daughter of Late Parasmal Ji, aged about
29 years, resident of Dungala, Tehsil & District Chittorgarh.
Note : Claimant No.6 and 7 i.e. Vardichand and Heribai,
before thelearned Tribunal, died during the pendency of the
claim petition; hence, they have not been impleaded as
party in this appeal.
----Appellant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., through
its Branch Manager, Banks Towers Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. (Insurer)
2. Krishan Kumar son of Pyare Lal resident of Plot No.226
Sector 1-A, Gandhidham, Kuchh (Gujarat)-902150.
(Owner).
3. Ratanlal son of Kishan Ji Kharol, resident of Kalyanpura,
Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara. (Driver).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ayush Goyal for
Mr. Vinay Kothari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
11/03/2025
1. A joint submission has been made by learned counsel for the
parties that a compromise has been entered into between the
parties in the spirit of Lok Adalat.
2. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the
appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as
[2025:RJ-JD:13565] (3 of 4) [CMA-1675/2013]
awarded vide judgment/award dated 16.07.2013 in MAC Case
No.721/2011 (67/08) whereby the claim of the appellant seeking
compensation against the respondents was allowed also holding
the insurance company liable jointly and severally to pay
compensation of Rs.17,90,000/- along with interest @ 8% per
annum.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have placed on record a
Memorandum of understanding ('MOU') dated 11.03.2025 and
submit that the parties have arrived at a settlement and the claim
has been amicably settled, as the insurance company has agreed
to pay an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- in addition to the amount
already paid.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the
claimant No.2 i.e. Sunita Ratadiya has expired during the
pendency of the appeal and her legal representatives are already
on record, the enhanced amount be disbursed to the remaining
claimants only.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in SBCMA No.1914/2013,
also submits that as settlement in the spirit of lok adalat has been
entered into between the parties, therefore, upon his oral request,
delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company does
not raise any objection to the same.
7. Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the parties have
arrived at a settlement, in the spirit of Lok Adalat, delay in filing of
the appeal is condoned.
8. In view of the above and in spirit of Lok Adalat, the
compensation amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal vide
[2025:RJ-JD:13565] (4 of 4) [CMA-1675/2013]
impugned judgment dated 16.07.2013, is further enhanced by
Rs.51,00,000/- in favour of the claimants/appellants as a full and
final settlement of the case. The amount so agreed shall be
deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal within a
period of three months from today, failing which, the same shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till
actual realization. The enhanced amount of compensation be
disbursed/deposited in the savings bank account of the legal
representatives of the claimant No.2 i.e. Sunita Ratadiya, as it has
been apprised that before filing of the appeal, the claimant No.2
i.e. Sunita Ratadiya had expired and thus, the amount be
disbursed to the remaining claimants only.
9. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal is disposed of. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
10. The MOU dated 11.03.2025 is taken on record.
11. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
1-2-/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
