Allowed

Jagdish Singh v. Anju Devi

Rajasthan HC5 Dec 2024CMA/2455/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed appeals filed by a vehicle owner against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award delaying significantly. The court condoned the delay citing settled Supreme Court law on vehicle classifications and held the Insurance Company cannot recover awarded compensation from the owner once paid to claimants.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; appeals allowed; finding on Issue No.3 set aside; Insurance Company held not entitled to recover award amount from owner.

Jagdish Singh Vs Anju Devi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:49746]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2390/2019

¶4

Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Hukam Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Kalyanpur Marg No. 4, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Vehicle Owner Of 3 Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Samandar Kanwar, Aged About 60 Years, Cate- Bhati (Rawana Rajput), R/o Vpo. Banksinghpur (Sai), TehsilShergarh, District- Jodhpur.

¶8

1. Rewat Singh S/o Late Shri Jalam Singh,, Cate- Bhati (Rawana Rajput), R/o Vpo. Banksinghpur (Sai), TehsilShergarh, District- Jodhpur.

¶9

1. Moti Singh S/o Late Shri Jalam Singh,, Aged About 60 Years, (Minor Through Smt. Samandar Kanwar Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1) Cate- Bhati (Rawana Rajput), R/o Vpo. Banksinghpur (Sai), Tehsil- Shergarh, District- Jodhpur.

¶10

1. Heer Singh S/o Late Shri Jalam Singh,, Aged About 60 Years, (Minor Through Smt. Samandar Kanwar Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1) Cate- Bhati (Rawana Rajput), R/o Vpo. Banksinghpur (Sai), Tehsil- Shergarh, District- Jodhpur.

¶11

1. Kelam Kanwar D/o Late Shri Jalam Singh,, Aged About 60 Years, (Minor Through Smt. Samandar Kanwar Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1) Cate- Bhati (Rawana Rajput), R/o Vpo. Banksinghpur (Sai), Tehsil- Shergarh, District- Jodhpur.

¶12

Moomal D/o Late Shri Jalam Singh,, Aged About 60 Years, (Minor Through Smt. Samandar Kanwar Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1) Cate- Bhati (Rawana Rajput), R/o Vpo. Banksinghpur (Sai), Tehsil- Shergarh, DistrictJodhpur.

¶13

Heera Lal Ailas Harish S/o Laxman Das,, Caste- Sant, R/o Undu, Police Station Shiv, Tehsil Shiv, District- Barmer (Rajasthan). (Vehicle Driver, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj-04-Pa 0019).

¶14

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Depot Manager, Jaipur. (Depot Manager, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj04-Pa 0019).

¶15

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Depot Manager, Depot Barmer. (Depot Manager, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj-04-Pa 0019).

¶16

Hanumana Ram S/o Megha Ram,, Caste- Brahmin, (Vehicle Driver Of 3 Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶17

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Dy. Manager, Branch Officer Tratiya Paksh Hub Office, 637-B, Bhansalo Tower, Teesara Mala, Residency Road, Jodhpur342001. (Rajasthan). (Insurer Of Vehicle Three Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

Connected With

¶20

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2455/2019

¶21

Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Hukum Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Kalyanpur Marg No. 4, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Vehicle Owner Of 3 Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

----Appellant

Versus

(2 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:49746]

[CMA-2390/2019]

Anju Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Housing Board, Balotara, District Barmer.

¶28

Ms. Indu Bala D/o Late Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Housing Board, Balotara, District Barmer.

¶29

Mayank S/o Late Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 14 Years, R/o Housing Board, Balotara, District Barmer. (Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anju Devi.)

¶30

Heera Lal @ Harish S/o Laxman Das, B/c Sant, R/o Undu, Police Station Shiv, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer (Rajasthan) (Vehicle Driver, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj-04-Pa 0019)

¶31

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Depot Manager, Depot , Barmer. (Depot Manager, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj-04-Pa 0019)

¶32

Hanumana Ram S/o Megha Ram, B/c Brahmin, R/o Milk Diary, Sansi Colony, Balotara, District Barmer. (Vehicle Driver Of 3 Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶33

Makhni Devi W/o Late Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 84 Years, B/c - Agrawal, R/o Housing Board, Balotara, Barmer.

¶34

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Dy. Manager, Branch Officer Tratiya Paksh Hub Office, 637-B, Bhansalo Tower, Teesara Mala, Residency Road, Jodhpur 342001 (Rajasthan) (Insurer Of Vehicle Three Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2456/2019

¶37

Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Hukum Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Kalyanpur Marg No. 4, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Vehicle Owner Of 3 Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶38

----Appellant

¶39

Versus

¶40

Champa Kanwar W/o Late Shri Mool Singh, Aged About 61 Years, B/c Bhati (Rawana Rajput), R/o Vpo Banksinghpur (Sai), Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.

¶41

Pappu Singh S/o Late Shri Mool Singh, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Bhati (Rawana Rajput), R/o Vpo Banksinghpur (Sai), Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.

¶42

Heera Lal @ Harish S/o Laxman Das, B/c Sant, R/o Undu, Police Station Shiv, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer (Rajasthan) (Vehicle Driver, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj-04-Pa-0019)

¶43

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Depot Manager, Jaipur. (Depot Manager, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj04-Pa-0019)

¶44

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Depot Manager, Depot Barmer. (Depot Manager, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj-04 Pa 0019)

¶45

Hanumana Ram S/o Megha Ram, B/c Brahmin, R/o Milk Dairy, Sansi Colony, Balotara, District Barmer. (Vehicle Driver 3 Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶46

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Dy. Manager, Branch Office Tratiya Paksh Hub Office, 637-B, Bhansalo Tower, Teesara Mala, Residency Road, Jodhpur 342001 (Rajasthan) (Insurer Of Vehicle Three Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶47

----Respondents

¶48

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2457/2019

¶49

Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Hukum Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Kalyanpur Marg No. 4, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Vehicle Owner Of 3

(3 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:49746]

[CMA-2390/2019]

Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶54

----Appellant

¶55

Versus

¶56

Dhapu Devi W/o Shri Chagna Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Housing Board, Balotara, District Barmer

¶57

Heera Lal @ Harish S/o Laxman Das, B/c Sant, R/o Undu, Police Station Shiv, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer (Rajasthan) (Vehicle Driver, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj-04-Pa-0019)

¶58

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Depot Manager, Jaipur. (Depot Manager, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj04-Pa-0019)

¶59

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Depot Manager, Depot Barmer. (Depot Manager, Rsrtc Bus No. Rj-04 Pa 0019)

¶60

Hanumana Ram S/o Megha Ram, B/c Brahmin, R/o Milk Dairy, Sansi Colony, Balotara, District Barmer. (Vehicle Driver 3 Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶61

Mahendra S/o Rameshwar Ji, B/c Mali, R/o Ward No. 14, Balotara, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Barmer. (Power Of Attorney Of Three Wheeler Taxi , Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶62

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Dy. Manager, Branch Office Tratiya Paksh Hub Office, 637-B, Bhansalo Tower, Teesara Mala, Residency Road, Jodhpur 342001 (Rajasthan) (Insurer Of Vehicle Three Wheeler Taxi, Rj-04-Pa-0270)

¶63

----Respondents

¶64

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Singhvi

¶65

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶66

Order

¶67

05/12/2024

¶68

The present appeals have been preferred by the appellant owner against the judgment and award dated 03.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra in MAC Case Nos.99/2009, 112/2009, 101/2009, and 230/2009 respectively.

¶69

The sole ground raised in the present appeals is that Issue No.3 has wrongly been decided in favour of the Insurance Company.

¶70

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue no more remains res-integra and is governed by the ratio laid down

[2024:RJ-JD:49746]

[CMA-2390/2019]

(4 of 6)

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited; (2017) 14 SCC 663 and further affirmed by the Constitution Bench in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors.; 2024 INSC 840 .

¶75

In Mukund Dewangan' s case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

¶76

"(i) " Light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) and 2 (48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54 of 1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 Kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-03-2001 in the form.''

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:49746]

[CMA-2390/2019]

Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company is not in a position to refute the above position of law.

¶81

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2390/2019 is reported to be barred by 2585 days and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos.2455/2019, 2456/2019 & 2457/2019 are reported to be barred by 2590 days. However, applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the said delay have been filed on behalf of the appellant.

¶82

It is admitted at Bar that the compensation amount has already been deposited by the Insurance Company and the same has even been disbursed to the claimants. The execution proceedings have now been initiated by the Insurance Company against the appellant owner for recovery of the said amount.

¶83

In view of the fact that the issue in question is now settled by Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) and the execution proceedings as initiated by the Insurance Company have not till date been finalized, this Court is of the view that the delay caused in filing the present appeals although inordinate, deserves to be condoned.

¶84

The Court is of the said opinion for the reason that ultimately the issue is to be governed by a law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the same, the Insurance Company cannot now recover the award amount from the owner as paid by it to the claimants.

¶85

In view of the above facts and observations, the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed . The delay caused in filing the present appeals is condoned.

¶86

For the same reasons, the appeals are also allowed .

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:49746]

[CMA-2390/2019]

The finding on Issue No.3 (in all the matters) is hereby set aside and is decided against the Insurance Company. It is hereby held that the Insurance Company shall not be entitled to recover the award amount from the appellant-owner.

¶91

Stay petitions also stand disposed of .

¶92

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶93

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶94

295-297--Devanshi/-

Jagdish Singh v. Anju Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Singh v. Anju Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Kumari Vs Mahendra Kumar

Pappu Nath Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Santosh Vs Bhanwar Singh Alias Bhanwar Lal

Jagdish Singh Vs Samandar Kanwar

Jagdish Singh Vs Champa Kanwar

Jagdish Singh Vs Dhapu Devi