Partly allowed

Smt Bhagwani Devi and Ors. v. Raju and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 May 2016CMA/42/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed under Limitation Act s. 5 was allowed, condoning delay. The appeal was disposed via compromise where insurance company consented to enhance award to Rs. 1,25,000 in addition to existing amount. Order directed deposit with Tribunal within 8 weeks with 9% annual interest if unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company to deposit Rs. 1,25,000 with Tribunal within 8 weeks; 9% annual interest if unpaid.

Smt Bhagwani Devi and Ors. Vs Raju and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR

¶3

HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶4

Mr . Sandeep Mat hur , counsel f or t he appel l ant s. Mr . Ami t Si ngh Shekhawat , counsel f or r espondent No. 2 Mr . S. R. Jat av, counsel f or t he I nsur ance Company.

¶5

Hear d on appl i cat i on f i l ed U/ s. 5 of t he Li mi t at i on Act and per used t he cont ent s t her eof .

¶6

I am sat i sf i ed wi t h t he cause shown i n t he appl i cat i on i n f i l i ng t he appeal wi t h del ay. Hence, t he del ay i s condoned and t he appl i cat i on U/ s. 5 of t he Li mi t at i on Act st ands al l owed. Bot h t he par t i es pr ay t hat t he mai n appeal may al so be di sposed t oday.

¶7

Thi s appeal has been f i l ed agai nst t he j udgment and awar d passed by MACT f or enhancement of t he quant um of compensat i on.

¶8

Mr . S. R. Jat av Advocat e appear s on behal f of t he I nsur ance Company.

¶9

Keepi ng i n vi ew t he pi ous wor k of Lok Adal at , at t hi s st age t he counsel f or bot h t he par t i es i . e. t he cl ai mant s and t he i nsur ance company agr ee t hat t hi s appeal may be di sposed on t he basi s of t he compr omi se. The l ear ned counsel f or t he i nsur ance company gave consent f or enhanci ng t he amount of t he awar d i . e. Rs. 1, 25, 000/ - ( Rs. One Lac Twent y Fi ve Thousand) .

¶10

The enhanced amount shal l be i n addi t i on t o t he awar d amount and t he cl ai mant s appel l ant s ar e hel d ent i t l ed t o get t he af or esai d amount .

¶11

¶12

I n vi ew of above, t hi s appeal i s par t l y al l owed and i t i s di r ect ed t hat t he i nsur ance company shal l deposi t t he af or esai d amount wi t h t he l ear ned Tr i bunal wi t hi n a per i od of 8 weeks f r om t he dat e of r ecei pt of cer t i f i ed copy of t hi s or der and t he same shal l be di sbur sed t o t he cl ai mant s. I n case t he amount i s not pai d t o t he cl ai mant s wi t hi n a per i od of 8 weeks, t he cl ai mant s shal l be ent i t l ed t o i nt er est on t he enhanced amount @ 9 % per annum f r om t he dat e of passi ng of t hi s j udgment . Rest of t he t er ms under t he awar d shal l r emai n unchanged. However , i t i s made cl ear t hat i f t her e i s any br each of i nsur ance pol i cy or vi ol at i on of t he t er ms of t he pol i cy, t he i nsur ance company shal l be at l i ber t y t o move an appl i cat i on bef or e t he execut i ng cour t f or r ecover i ng t he amount f r om t he owner of t he of f endi ng vehi cl e or he can move an appl i cat i on bef or e t hi s cour t f or r ecal l i ng of t he or der .

¶13

The i mpugned awar d st ands modi f i ed, as i ndi cat ed her e- i n- above.

¶14

( Mahesh Chandr a Shar ma) J.

¶15

Sur esh

¶16

All corrections made in the judgment /order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

¶17

SK Sharma DR

Smt Bhagwani Devi and Ors. v. Raju and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bhagwani Devi and Ors. v. Raju and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Vs Badri Bai

Mamta Meena Vs K K Pathak and Others

Pratap Nagar Vikas Samiti and Vs C K Mathew and Others

Mahadev Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kanchanbai and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kherunisha Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp