Dismissed

Gokul Ram v. Smt Janki @ Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CMA/3646/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal contending a clerical error regarding the non-exhibition of a driving license. The court held that the document produced was part of the registration certificate, not a license, and no license was on record during the tribunal proceedings. The impugned order was upheld as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Miscellaneous Application, if any, are dismissed.

Gokul Ram Vs Smt Janki @ Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6951]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3646/2009

¶4

Gokul Ram son of Shri Lichhman Ram, R/o Neshal Chhoti, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt Janki @ Jani, wife of Late Shri Vidhyadhar.

¶8

Suresh son of Late Shri Vidhyadhar.

¶9

Gulab son of Late Shri Vidhyadhar.

¶10

All residents of Nandrampura, Tehsil Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu 4. Suresh Kumar son of Hari Singh, resident of Dhani Mauji, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶11

National Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, near Alok Cinema, Churu District, Churu.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Neetu Bhansali, Adv. for Mr. S.K. Jindal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Gupta, Adv.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶15

Order

¶16

09/02/2024

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties, on merits at this stage only.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant appearing for owner of the vehicle submits that in evidence of AW-1 Janki, the driving license was exhibited as exhibit-5 and inadvertently same was exhibited on wrong document i.e. second page of registration certificate, which was a clerical mistake and can be cured at any point of time. She also submits that the trial Court while considering this aspect on issue No.3 has clearly held that driving license is available on record but same is not exhibited in the evidence.

[2024:RJ-JP:6951]

[CMA-3646/2009]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the trial court was of the view that the driving license was not submitted either by the claimant or by the owner of the vehicle, therefore, in absence of driving license the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the claim. He also submits that exhibit-5 is not the document which can be considered as driving license.

¶23

A perusal of the record indicated that the evidence of claimant was recorded on 26.02.2005 and after closure of evidence of the both the parties, the judgment was reserved on a very same day and the matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 03.03.2005.

¶24

On 03.03.2005 learned Tribunal has pronounced the judgment. A perusal of the order-sheet clearly indicated that neither on 26.02.2005 nor on 03.03.2005, any document namely driving license was produced by any of the party to the proceeding.

¶25

A perusal of record indicated that exhibit-5 is not a driving license, rather it is page Nos.6 and 7 of the Registration Certificate Exhibit-4, exhibited by AW.1 Janki on 26.02.2005.

¶26

The form of documents, filed with the claim petition indicates that same was filed on 28.04.2003 but nowhere it was mentioned that driving license (DL) was also enclosed. A perusal of record also indicated that the driving license was filed on 03.03.2005 with form of document but the filing of this document (DL) is not part of the proceeding of learned Tribunal recorded on 03.03.2005, therefore, the driving license was not on record on 26.02.2005, when the evidence of AW-1 Janki was recorded by learned

[2024:RJ-JP:6951]

[CMA-3646/2009]

(3 of 3)

Tribunal. The record clearly indicated that this document was never been taken on record even on 03.03.2005, before disposal of claim petition.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted as the appeal is being devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶32

As a result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed along with Miscellaneous Application, if any.

¶33

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶34

Ashwani/-44

Gokul Ram v. Smt Janki @ Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Ram v. Smt Janki @ 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

M/S Bhanwar Lal and Company Vs State and Ors.

Rakesh Goyal Vs Smt Pushplata and Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shoukat Ali and Ors.

Natwar Lal Vs State

Sita Ram Vs Jugal Kishore

Vishnu Prakash Vs Kishan Lal and Ors.