Allowed

Tarachand S/O Bodanlal Yadav v. Dataram S/O. Bhuraram Gurjar

Rajasthan HC5 Aug 2021CW/3033/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order set aside an MACT order refusing to release insurance compensation. The court directed the release of the balance award amount from the fresh award dated 15.10.2019, minus the 50% already paid under an earlier decree, and ordered any surplus returned to the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 07.01.2020 set aside; MACT directed to release balance award amount from FDR after deducting prior payment.

Tarachand S/O Bodanlal Yadav Vs Dataram S/O… — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3033/2020

¶3

Tarachand S/o Bodanlal Yadav, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Udaka Bas, Nai Dhani, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶4

Neeraj S/o Tarachand Yadav, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Tarachand S/o. Bodanlal (Yadav), Resident Of Udaka Bas, Nai Dhani, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dataram S/o. Bhuraram Gurjar, Resident Of Naurangpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. Rj-32-Ga-2972)

¶8

Radhey Shyam S/o Bhuraram Gurjar, Resident Of Naurangpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. Rj-32-Ga-2972)

¶9

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Regional Office At M.i. Road, Jaipur (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Truck No. Rj-32-Ga-2972)

¶10

Neetu D/o. Tarachand Yadav, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Udaka Bas, Nai Dhani, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶11

Rasna D/o. Tarachand Yadav, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Udaka Bas, Nai Dhani, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Gaurav Gupta	----Respondents
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Praveen Jain

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶14

Order

¶15

05/08/2021

¶16

The petitioners by way of this writ petition assail the order dated 07.01.2020 passed by the learned MACT and Additional

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-3033/2020]

¶19

District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kotputali whereby he has rejected the application for release of the amount as awarded by the MACT No.1, Kotputali dated 15.10.2019.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the learned Court has erred in passing the order dated 07.01.2020. Relying upon earlier interim order passed by this Court in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1125/2014 whereby 50% of the claim amount was released and the 50% of the amount as awarded earlier by the MACT dated 08.01.2014 had been kept in the FDR. Learned counsel submits that the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1125/2014 was ultimately disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2015 and the matter was remanded to the learned MACT, Kotputali to pass a fresh award dated 15.10.2019. Thus, as per the fresh award, the amount was to be released to the petitioners but the learned MACT/Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kotputali has refused to release the said amount as per the award dated 15.10.2019.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, does not contest the case as the learned counsel fairly submits that the amount as awarded under the award dated 15.10.2019 ought to be released to the petitioner. However, if any excess amount is lying in the FDR, as per the earlier order dated 10.04.2014 passed by this Court, the same should be returned to the Insurance Company.

¶22

I have considered the submissions.

¶23

This Court finds that the stand taken by the Insurance Company is quite fair and is in accordance with law. The order passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-3033/2020]

¶26

No.1, Kotputali, approach of relying upon an interim order passed by this Court order dated 10.04.2014 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1125/2014 to deny claim is found to be wholly erroneous as the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1125/2014 stood finally adjudicated by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2015. As the matter was remanded, the MACT has passed fresh award on reward dated 15.10.2019 and the petitioner would be governed by the fresh award for the amount to be released to him. Since the petitioner already received 50% of the amount under the earlier award dated 08.01.2014, would now only entitle to the amount awarded finally on 15.10.2019 minus the amount already received.

¶27

The difference of amount which is lying in the FDR and the 50% of the amount which was lying as per the earlier award shall be released and after deducting the amount to be paid to the petitioners, if there is any amount lying therein, the same shall be returned back to the Insurance Company. 7. In view thereof, the order dated 07.01.2020 is set aside and the learned MACT and Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kotputali is directed to release the remaining amount apart from 50% which was already paid as per the earlier award in accordance with the amount as directed by the new award passed on 15.10.2019.

¶28

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶30

TN/43

Tarachand S/O Bodanlal Yadav v. Dataram S/O. Bhuraram Gurjar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarachand S/O Bodanlal Yadav v. Dataram S/O. Bhuraram Gurjar

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

Kailash Chand Kalkal S/O Shri Teja Ram Kalkal Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Saraswati Modern Senior Secondary School Bansur Alwar Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Saraswati Vidhya Vihar Samiti Vs Punjab National Bank

Binesh Kumar Jangid S/O Shri Bajrang Lal Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan

Yashwant Kumari Daughter of Shri Takhat Singh Vs Smt. Harnath Kumari Wife of Late Shri Takhat Singh

Pradeep Singh @ Devendra Singh Rathore S/O Late Shri Prithvi Singh Vs Mohammed Yakoob S/O Mohammad Umar