Allowed

Jagdish and Anr. v. Bijendra Kumar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2008CW/10235/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a condition requiring accident compensation claimants to furnish security from the vehicle owner was unreasonable and unjustified. Based on precedents, the condition was deemed waived, ordered deleted, and compensation directed to be released immediately subject to the Tribunal's investment scheme.

What did the court decide?

Condition requiring security from the vehicle owner's denoted as an instrument of security from the owner of the vehicle is deleted. Compensation to be released forthwith.

Jagdish and Anr. Vs Bijendra Kumar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

SBCWP 10235/2007
1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

Jagdish and anr. Vs. Bijendra Kumar and ors.

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10235/07

¶6

Date of Order :- 12/02/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶7

Shri Gaurav Gupta for petitioners. Smt. Chitra Goyal for respondents. ****

¶8

BY THE COURT:-

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

This writ petition has been filed challenging the condition inthe award of compensation that the same shall be disbursed to the claimants only after they furnish security from the owner of the vehicle.

¶11

Similar issue has been considered by various co-ordinate benches of this Court in Smt. Rama & Balwant Singh, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.71/06, Banwari Lal Vs. Gopi Ram, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.481/05, Sheoji Ram Mali Vs. The Judge, ADJ (F.T.) No.7, Jaipur & City & Ors., Kumari Nargis Vs. Karan Singh & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.356/05 & Manju (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Addl. District & Session Judge & Ors. and by this Court in Smt. Uganti Devi & Ors. Vs. MACT, Jaipur City & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2999/07 wherein it was held that the aforesaid

¶12

SBCWP 10235/2007
2

¶13

condition is unreasonable and unjustified and therefore that was waived.

¶14

Having gone through the aforesaid judgments, I find myself in agreement with the view taken therein. The condition of making the payment of compensation to the claimants to depend upon the factum of security being furnished by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident can neither be said to be justified nor reasonable.

¶15

The impugned condition is therefore ordered to be deleted and it is directed that the amount of compensation shall be forthwith released to the claimants subject to the scheme of investment etc. evolved by the Tribunal in the award.

¶16

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶17

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶18

anil

Jagdish and Anr. v. Bijendra Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish and Anr. v. Bijendra Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Nagar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rekhraj Pareek and Ors. Vs Sh.Niwas and Ors.

Ishwar Lal Vs Adj NO.4, Jaipur City

Yaduvendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramji Lal Goutam Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs Adj NO.2, Bundi and Ors.