Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chunni Kanwar vs O I C And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:39998) on 9 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:39998] (1 of 4) [CMA-185/2004]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 185/2004
MS Chunni Kanwar widow of Nan Singh, by caste Unthad
Rajput, Aged 45 years, Resident of Kuncholi, Post Bagol, tehsil
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through D.M.
Outside Delhi Gate, Udaipur.
2. Shri Virendra Singh S/o Tej Singh.
3. Shri Gaje Singh S/o Khaman Singh.
Both by caste Rajput, Resident of Kucholi, Post Bagol, Tehsil
Nathdwara District Rajsamand.
4. Shri Bhagwandas S/o Ramdas, by caste Varagi, Resident of
Gunjol, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera & Mr. Lokendra
Singh for Mr. Sandeep Saruparia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
09/09/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and
award dated 15.11.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in Claim Case
No.526/98, whereby, the claim petition filed by the
appellant-claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') has
been rejected.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:48:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39998] (2 of 4) [CMA-185/2004]
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant vehemently
submits that Kishan Singh, who was under the employment
of the respondent Nos.2 & 3, namely, Virendra Singh & Gajje
Singh, died in the accident occurred on 06.02.1995 while
traveling from Nathdawara to Kuncholi in a tractor. Learned
counsel also submits that the findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal on Issue Nos.1 & 2 are erroneous, as the
reply filed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 namely Virendra
Singh & Gajje Singh has not been taken into consideration
while deciding these issues. He further submits that the
material available on record shows that the accident did take
place on 06.02.1995 in which Kishan Singh died. He very
fairly submits that the application for converting the claim
petition from Section 166 to Section 163(A) of the Act of
1988 was not filed before the learned Tribunal. However, he
prays that considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the matter may be
remanded back to the learned Tribunal and the appellant
may be granted permission to file an appropriate application
before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Rajsamand for converting the claim petition filed under
Section 166 into Section 163(A) of the Act of 1988.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant. He submits that the appellant has
failed to produce Virendra Singh & Gajje Singh in the witness
box to fortify the fact that the Tractor was not being driven
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:48:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39998] (3 of 4) [CMA-185/2004]
by Kishan Singh. He further submits that even in the First
Information Report, it has come on record that the Tractor
was being driven by Kishan Singh and, therefore, the learned
Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition filed by the
appellant-claimant after taking into consideration the
statement of Purshottam (AD-2).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company is
not in a position to refute the factum of accident taken place
on 06.02.1995 in which Kishan Singh passed away.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case including the
impugned judgment dated 15.11.2000.
7. It is noted that on 06.02.1995 in an accident, Kishan Singh
passed away while traveling from Nathdwara to Kuncholi
road by a Tractor. The claim petition filed under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was adjudicated by the
learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the relevant
material placed before it. Since the factum of accident and
death of Kishan Singh is not disputed, therefore, this Court
feels that ends of justice will be met, if the matter is
remanded back to the learned Tribunal and a liberty is
granted to the appellant to file an appropriate application for
conversion of the claim petition filed under Section 166 into
Section 163(A) of the Act of 1988.
8. It is made clear that if the said application is preferred by
the appellant-claimant before the learned Tribunal, the
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:48:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39998] (4 of 4) [CMA-185/2004]
Tribunal shall decide the same at its own merit, taking into
consideration all the relevant evidence and material placed
before it without being influenced by the order passed by
this Court.
9. The present civil misc. appeal is disposed of in the above
terms.
10. The record of this case be sent forthwith.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
8-Anil Singh/-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:48:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
