Allowed

United Undia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhya

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2024CW/9851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order which merged claim petitions and read a previous reply for an impleaded insurance company without affording it an opportunity to file a specific reply. The Court held this approach erroneous as different claim petitions involve distinct issues such as income and dependency. The writ is disposed of with a direction to the Tribuna

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tribunal to allow the Petitioner Insurance Company an opportunity to file its reply to the claim petition within one week before proceeding.

United Undia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vidhya — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28421]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9851/2024

¶4

United Undia Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Shiv Chauk, In Front Of Roadways Depot, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) (Insurer Of Tractor Trolley No. Rj-31-Rb2887)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vidhya W/o Shri Ram Pratap, Aged About 58 Years, B/c Verma, R/o Plot No. 995 Ward No. 13, Purani Aabadi, Sri Ganganagar.

¶8

Anju Devi W/o Gunal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Kumhar, R/o - 20, Ramdev Colony, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶9

Karan S/o Late Shri Gunal, Through His Mother As Legal And Natural Guardian Smt. Anju W/o Late Shri Gunal, R/o- 20, Ramdev Colony, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶10

Suresh S/o Shri Krishna Lal, R/o Manuka, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, (Raj.). (Driver Of The Tractor Trolley No. Rj-31-Rb-2887)

¶11

Hansraj S/o Shri Kashiram, R/o Manuka, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, (Raj.). (Owner Of The Tractor Trolley No. Rj-31-Rb-2887)

¶12

Ved Prakash S/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o 1St Floor, Shop No. 37, Cgr Mall, Hanumangarh Road, Chahal Chauk, Sri Ganganagar, (Aj.) (Owner/driver Of The Scorpio Car No. Rj-13-Ua-1821)

¶13

National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Suratgarh Road, Sriganganagar (Raj.). (Insurer Of The Scorpio Car No. Rj-13-Ua-1821)

¶14

Balkaran Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Owner Of The Tractor Trolley No. Rj-31-Rb-2887)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vishal Singhal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gyan Jyoti Gupta for Respondent
	Nos.1 to 3

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:28421]

[CW-9851/2024]

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶21

Judgment / Order

¶22

12/07/2024

¶23

The present petition has been preferred against the orders dated 22.03.2024 and 15.04.2024 whereby the learned Tribunal proceeded on to implead the present petitioner, that is, United India Insurance Company as respondent No.6 to the claim petition and further proceeded on to consolidate all the four claim petitions pertaining to the same accident.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the inception, submits that although the challenge made by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal was regarding its impleadment and consolidation of the claim petitions, but now, he limits his prayer only to the extent of an opportunity of reply been granted to the company.

¶25

Counsel submits that vide order dated 22.03.2024, while impleading the petitioner Insurance Company as party to the claim petition, the learned Tribunal proceeded on to hold that the reply as filed by the Insurance Company in the earlier claim petitions be read in this claim petition too. Counsel submits that the said approach is totally erroneous and the right of the petitioner Insurance Company cannot be curtailed as the grounds of claim in each claim petition are totally different and the same have to be defended.

¶26

Counsel further submits that even the review petition as preferred by the Insurance Company has been erroneously rejected by the learned Tribunal.

[2024:RJ-JD:28421]

[CW-9851/2024]

(3 of 4)

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

¶31

A bare perusal of the order dated 22.03.2024 reflects that vide the said order the learned Tribunal proceeded on to allow the application for impleadment of the United India Insurance Company as preferred by the National Insurance Company. However, while allowing the said impleadment, the learned Tribunal observed that a reply has already been preferred by the United India Insurance Company in the other claim petition being 43/2018 and hence, the said reply be read in the present claim petition too.

¶32

In the specific opinion of this Court, the said approach of the learned Tribunal is totally erroneous as the right of any party to defend and to controvert the pleadings as made by the claimant/ plaintiff cannot be curtailed. Evidently, all the four petitions have been preferred by different claimants and even if the issue of negligence would be common in all the petitions, the issues pertaining to the income of the deceased/injured, the disability if any, the dependency if any, etc. would be totally different. A reply in any one of the claim petitions cannot therefore be read to be a reply in all the claim petitions. The opportunity to file reply to the claim petition wherein the petitioner Insurance Company was subsequently impleaded, ought to have been granted by the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal could not have straightaway proceeded on with the claimants’ evidence.

¶33

In view of the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner Insurance Company

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:28421]

[CW-9851/2024]

to prefer an application within a period of one week with the learned Tribunal with the prayer for an opportunity to file its reply to the claim petition in which it had been impleaded vide order dated 22.03.2024. On such an application being preferred, the learned Tribunal shall afford a reasonable time to the Insurance Company to file its reply/defence and then proceed on with the matter in accordance with law.

¶38

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶39

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶40

258-AbhishekK-

United Undia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Undia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhya

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

Bhanwar Lal Vs the Pali Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Raghuveer Singh Vs Indira Rathore

Mal Chand Vs Lrs of Late Sh. Karni Dan

Acharya Shri Bhikshu Samadhi Sthatl Sansthan Vs the Chief Provident Fund Commissioner

Balvinder Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Monika Vs Dharmendra