[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
National Insurance Company Limited vs Chanda Devi And Ors (2026:Rj-Jd:7228) on 10 February, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:7228]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 770/1997
National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Legally Constituted
Authority, Regional Office, Sun Tower, Pal Road, Jodhpur.
-Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Chanda Devi W/o. Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Chandak, R/o.
Village Chandi, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
2. Pushpa W/o. Shri Gopal Lal D/o. Late Shri Kanhaiyalal
Chandak, R/o. Village Bassi, Tehsil & District Chittoragrh.
3. Ballu D/o. Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Chandak,
4. Manju D/o. Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Chandak,
5. Ashok S/o. Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Chandak,
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are residents of Village Chandi,
Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
6/1. Radha Kishan S/o. Shri Ramkishan Chandak & Late
Chhangani Devi
6/2. Chandratan S/o. Shri Ramkishan Chandak & Late
Chhangani Devi
6/3. Mohani W/o. Late Shri Tikamchand Ji Karnani D/o. Shri
Ramkishan Chandak & Late Chhagani Devi,
6/4. Sohani Devi W/o. Bhojraj Ji Karnani D/o. Shri Ramkishan
Chandak & Late Chhagani Devi,
Respondent Nos. 6/1 to 6/4 are residents of Outside
Jassusar Gate, Bikaner.
-Respondents/Claimants
7. Purshottam S/o. Shri Ramlal, B/c Brahman, R/o. Behind
Roshani Ghar, Bikaner.
Second Address - Village Angdeu, P.S. Gajner, District
Bikaner.
8. Mange Khan S/o. Rahim Khan, Musalman, R/o. Village
Kavani, Tehsil Kolayat, P.S. Gajner, District Bikaner.
Second Address - Bhato ka Bass, P.S. Nayashahar, District
Bikaner.
9. Ummaid Singh S/o. Santu Singh Rajput, through Jeewan
Singh Ji Buswale, Behind M. S. College, Near Railway Line Ki
Gali, Bikaner.
-Non-Applicants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam Charan for
Mr. Jagdish Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh.
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:48:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 08:48:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7228] (2 of 5) [CMA-770/1997]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
10/02/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal was filed by the Insurance Company
against the judgment and award dated 31.07.1997 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (For short 'learned
Tribunal'), whereby the claim application filed by the respondents-
claimants was allowed and an amount of Rs.1,59,500/- was
awarded in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 12% per
annum.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present case are that the
husband of the respondent No.1-claimant namely Kanhaiya Lal
was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.RJI 1885 on
17.08.1988. The said bus met with an accident, in which Kanhaiya
Lal sustained injuries and on account of which, he died. On the
claim application filed by the respondents-claimants, learned
Tribunal framed eight issues and after deliberating on the same,
awarded a sum of Rs.1,59,500/- in favour of the claimants.
Hence, the present appeal was filed by the Insurance Company.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently
submits that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on
Issue No.6 is not correct as the risk of each passenger of the bus
was covered only to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the
Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the
tune of Rs.15,000/- only and the learned Tribunal was not correct
in awarding the sum of Rs.1,59,500/- in the present case. He
further submits that the photocopy of the insurance policy was
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:48:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7228] (3 of 5) [CMA-770/1997]
produced before the learned Tribunal, however, the learned
Tribunal has incorrectly held that in the absence of the original
policy, the risk cover of each passenger will be unlimited.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits
that since the photocopy of the insurance policy was produced
before the learned Tribunal and the same was admitted by the
claimants, therefore, there was no reasons for the learned Tribunal
to disbelieve the veracity of the insurance policy placed before it.
Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the findings recorded by
the learned Tribunal on Issue Nos.4, 5 and 6 are erroneous and
thus, the liability fastened upon the Insurance Company to pay an
amount of Rs.1,59,500/- is unjust. He, therefore, prays that the
appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award
dated 31.07.1997 may be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants
while supporting the findings recorded on Issue Nos.6 submits
that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited in view
of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of National
Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Shantadevi, reported in 1996 3
RLW 245. He further submits that the deceased Kanhaiya Lal was
not a party to the agreement between the Insurance Company
and the owner of the bus, but since the bus was insured with the
appellant-Insurance Company, therefore, he is entitled for the
compensation awarded in the present case. He further submits
that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal does not suffer
from any infirmity and therefore, no interference is warranted in
the present case.
7. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the
respondents-claimants relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Insurance
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:48:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7228] (4 of 5) [CMA-770/1997]
Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors, reported in 2004 3
SCC 297, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
third party risk is fully covered by the Insurance Company and it is
the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the decree at the
first instance, however, in case of any breach of the policy
condition, the Insurance Company will be fully entitled to recover
the same from the owner and driver. He, therefore, prays that the
present appeal may be dismissed.
8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case.
9. Admittedly, in the present case, Kanhaiya Lal while travelling
in the bus No.RJI 1885 died in an accident, which took place on
17.08.1988. On the claim application filed by the claimants, the
learned Tribunal after framing of the issues and deliberating on
each issue had decided the claim application in favour of the
respondents-claimants and had awarded a sum of Rs.1,59,500/-.
The fact that the bus was insured with the appellant Insurance
Company is not disputed. It is also a fact that the deceased
Kanhaiya Lal was a third party while travelling in the bus and he
succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. Since the bus
was insured with the Insurance Company and the original copy of
the insurance policy was not produced before the learned Tribunal,
the learned Tribunal has correctly held that in the absence of the
original copy of the insurance policy, the risk of the passenger is
unlimited in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the
case of Smt. Shantadevi (supra).
10. Further, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal on issued Nos. 4, 5 and 6 do not suffer from any
infirmity as the learned Tribunal has correctly held that since the
bus was insured with the Insurance Company, the risk of the
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:48:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7228] (5 of 5) [CMA-770/1997]
passenger cannot be made limited to Rs.15,000/- only, more
particularly when the original insurance policy has not been
produced before the learned Tribunal. Even, it is noted that in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran
Singh (supra), it has been held that the risk of the third party is
covered by the Insurance Company and the decree passed against
the Insurance Company is liable to be satisfied, however, the
Insurance Company will be free to pay and recover if there is any
breach of the policy condition.
11. Similarly in the present case, the claimants are entitled for
the entire compensation at the hands of the Insurance Company,
however, the judgment and award dated 31.07.1997 is modified to
the extent that the Insurance Company will be free to recover the
amount of compensation if it is found that there is any breach of
the Insurance policy. However, the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal is required to be paid by the Insurance Company
to the claimants.
12. In view of the discussion made above, there is no force in
the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
13. Stay application as well as other pending misc. applications,
if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
1-Shahenshah/-
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:48:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
