Partly allowed

Kunni v. Vidhyadhar Singh

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2023CMA/1175/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an accident compensation award held by a Tribunal. While upholding the exoneration of the other truck's insurer, it quashed the finding that excluded the insurer of the deceased driver's truck, ruling that he was covered under the policy as a paid driver.

What did the court decide?

The exoneration of The New India Assurance Company Limited was quashed. The court ruled this insurer must pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The liability of IFFCO TOKIO was upheld.

Kunni Vs Vidhyadhar Singh — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1175/2019

¶4

Smt. Kunni W/o Late Shri Panna Ram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶5

Leela D/o Late Shri Panna Ram, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant Claimant No. 1. Smt. Kunni W/o Late Shri Panna Ram. B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶6

Mukesh S/o Late Shri Panna Ram, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant Claimant No. 1. Smt. Kunni W/o Late Shri Panna Ram. B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶7

Prakash S/o Late Shri Panna Ram, Aged About 12 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant Claimant No. 1. Smt. Kunni W/o Late Shri Panna Ram. B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶8

Heera W/o Late Shri Deva Ram, Aged About 70 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Vidhyadhar Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, B/c Daroga, R/o Khariyabada, Sujangarh, P.s. Salasar, District Churu. (Driver Truck No. Rj23 Ga 7808)

¶12

Ramniwas S/o Shri Gula Ram, R/o Tidoki Chhoti, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Police Station Nechua, District Sikar. (Registered Owner Truck No. Rj23 Ga 7808)

¶13

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, 140A, 1St Floor, First A Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. (Insurer Owner Truck No. Rj23 Ga 7808)

¶14

Babu Ram S/o Shri Chimna Ram, B/c Jat R/o Ad Manji, Tehsil Gudamalani, Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer. (Driver Truck No. Rj19 1G 2405)

¶15

Legal Representatives of Nemi Chand Goyal S/o Shri Champa Lal, B/c Prajapt, R/o 279, First B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.(since died during pendency of appeal)

¶16

5/1. Smt. Indra w/o Late Shri Nemi Chand Goyal, aged about 60 years, R/o 279, First B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶17

5/2. Sumit Goyal S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand Goyal, aged about 30 years, R/o 279, First B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶18

5/3. Reena Bug W/o Shri Jagdish Bug d/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, aged about 42 years, R/o First B Road,

¶19

(2 of 6)

¶20

[CMA-1175/2019]

¶21

Sardarpura, Jodhpur. 5/4. Taruna Borawad W/o Shri Omprakash D/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, aged about 37 years, R/o First B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶22

5/5. Soniya Khanna W/o Shri Pramod Khanna D/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, aged about 35 years, R/o Opposite K.N. Collage Paota, Jodhpur. (Registered Owner Truck No. Rj19 1G 2405)

¶23

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Abhay Chambers, Chopasani Road, Jalori Gate, Rajasthan. (Insurer Truck No. Rj19 1G 2405)

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

Connected With

¶26

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1956/2019

¶27

Baburam S/o Chimnaram @ Shimnaram, B/c Jat R/o Ad Manji, Tehsil Gudamalani, Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer. (Driver Truck No. Rj19 1G 2405)

¶28

Nemichand Goyal S/o Champalal (since deceased) through LRs (Owner Truck No. Rj-19-1G-2405)

¶29

2/1. Smt. Indra w/o Late Shri Nemichand Goyal, aged about 60 years, R/o 279, 1^st ‘B’ Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶30

2/2. Sumit Goyal S/o Late Shri Nemichand Goyal, aged about 30 years, R/o 279, 1^st ‘B’ Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶31

2/3. Reena Bug W/o Shri Jagdish Bug, aged about 42 years, R/o 1^st ‘B’ Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶32

2/4. Taruna Borawad W/o Shri Omprakash, aged about 37 years, R/o 1^st ‘B’ Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶33

2/5. Soniya Khanna W/o Shri Pramod Khanna, aged about 35 years, R/o Opposite K.N. Collage Paota, Jodhpur.

¶34

----Appellants

¶35

Versus

¶36

Smt. Kunni W/o Late Pannaram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶37

Mst. Leela D/o Late Pannaram, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Kunti. B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶38

Mukesh S/o Late Pannaram, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Kunti. B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶39

Prakash S/o Late Pannaram, Aged About 12 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Kunti. B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶40

Smt. Heera W/o Late Devaram, Aged About 70 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Khabarda Khurd, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶41

Vidhyaghar Singh S/o Devi Singh, B/c Daroga, R/o

¶42

(3 of 6)

¶43

[CMA-1175/2019]

¶44

Khariya Bada, Sujangarh, Ps Salasar, District Churu. (Driver of Truck No. Rj-23-Ga-7808)

¶45

Ramniwas S/o Gularam, R/o Tidoki Chhoti, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Ps Nechua, District Sikar. (Owner Of Truck No. Rj-23-Ga-7808)

¶46

IFFCO TOKIYO General Insurance Company Ltd, 140A First Floor, First A Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. (Insurer of Truck No. Rj-23-Ga-7808)

¶47

Baburam S/o Chimnaram @ Shimnaram, B/c Jat, R/o Ad Manji, Tehsil Gudamalani, Ps Sindhari, Distt. Barmer (Raj.) (Driver Truck No Rj-19-1G-2405)

¶48

The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Divisional Office, Abhay Chamber, Chopasni Road, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. (Insurer of Truck No. Rj-19-1G-2405)

¶49

----Respondents

¶50

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Santosh Kumar Sankhla (for claimants)
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Mahender Singh Soni Mr. Vishal Singhal (for IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited) Mr. Rishi Chouhan (for The New India Assurance Company Limited) Mr. Prashant Panwar associate to
		Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate (for
		Owner of Truck No. RJ19 -1G 2405)

¶51

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶52

Order

¶53

05/01/2023

¶54

The present appeals have been filed against the award dated 22.01.2019 whereby compensation of Rs.11,65,592/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. Vide the said award both the Insurance Companies i.e. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.3) as well as The New India Assurance Company Limited (respondent No.6) were exonerated and the complete liability was fastened on the driver and owner of the vehicle No.RJ19 -1G 2405. Appeal No.1175/2019 has been preferred by the claimants against the exoneration of the

¶55

(4 of 6)

¶56

[CMA-1175/2019]

¶57

Insurance Companies whereas appeal No.1956/2019 has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle No.RJ19 -1G 2405 on the same ground.

¶58

The case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal was that the deceased was travelling in Truck No.RJ19 -1G 2405 as a second driver which met with an accident due to a collision between the said truck and the other vehicle No.RJ23 GA 7808. The learned Tribunal proceeded on to hold that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Truck No.RJ19 - 1G 2405 and therefore, exonerated the Insurance Company of the other vehicle i.e. Truck No.RJ23 GA 7808. So far as the insurer of Truck No.RJ19 -1G 2405 is concerned, learned Tribunal reached to a finding that the deceased was not a third party qua the insurer of the said truck and therefore, the Insurance Company i.e. The New India Assurance Company Limited would also not be liable to pay the compensation. Meaning thereby, the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Companies of both the vehicles involved in the accident.

¶59

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in the capacity of a second driver was nowhere in dispute on record. The said fact was neither questioned nor disputed by any of the parties, therefore, he was specifically covered under the insurance policy which provided the cover to the paid driver, conductor and cleaner employed for the vehicle. He further submitted that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a second driver and was covered by the insurance cover as a traveller and not as a third party to the insurer. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the insurer and Truck No.RJ19 -1G 2405 would not be liable for compensation on

¶60

(5 of 6)

¶61

[CMA-1175/2019]

¶62

the ground of the deceased not being a third party to the insurer is wholly illegal and perverse. So far as the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the exoneration of the insurer of Truck No.RJ23 GA 7808 is concerned, learned counsel did not press his challenge to the same. Further, learned counsel also did not press the appeal to the extent of quantum of compensation.

¶63

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶64

It is clear on record that the deceased was travelling in the truck owned by the owner Nemi Chand Goyal and insured by the respondent No.6 The New India Assurance Company Limited in the capacity of a second driver. The said fact was neither challenged nor disputed by any of the parties, therefore, the question whether the deceased was a third party qua the insurance policy of Truck No.RJ19 -1G 2405 was not even required to be adjudicated. Admittedly, the insurance policy was a ‘Commercial Vehicle Liability Only Policy’ and covered the liability as under:

¶65

“LL to persons employed for opn and/or maint. and/or loading and/or unloading, LL to paid driver conductor cleaner employed for oprn”

¶66

The deceased being a second driver was definitely covered by the above liability clause as mentioned in the insurance cover. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal to the extent that the respondent No.6 The New India Assurance Company Limited would not be liable for payment of the compensation is totally illegal and contrary to the record. The same is therefore, quashed and set aside.

¶67

(6 of 6) [CMA-1175/2019]

¶68

So far as the exoneration of the respondent No.3-IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants is also agreeable to the fact that the exoneration of the said Insurance Company is not bad. In view of the same, the finding regarding exoneration of the respondent No.3 is confirmed.

¶69

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed the same and therefore, this Court is not delving into the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶70

In view of the above facts and the above observations, the award dated 22.01.2019 is modified to the extent that the respondent No.6 The New India Assurance Company Limited would be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants as awarded by the learned Tribunal below. The deposit of the compensation amount as well as the disbursement shall be in terms of the award.

¶71

The present appeals are disposed of accordingly.

¶72

Stay petition and all pending applications also stand disposed

¶73

of.

¶74

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶75

40 & 41-Sachin/Dharmendra/-

Kunni v. Vidhyadhar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunni v. Vidhyadhar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Tandi Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh Vs Kalu

Arvind Sharma Vs Smt. Chatar Kunwar

Nemichand Vs Kunni

Babu Lal Vs Shri Ram Dayal

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Nahar Singh @ Narayan Singh and Ors.