Partly allowed

Savitri Devi v. United India Insurance Company Limited

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2024XOBJC/33/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a cross-objection withdrawn by the claimants. In the main appeal, the court held that even if the insurance company is exonerated from paying compensation due to a breach of policy, it remains liable to 'Pay and Recover' based on judicial precedent. Consequently, the court rejected a stay application seeking an interim order against the claimants.

What did the court decide?

Stay application against claimants rejected; dismissal of cross-objection allowed; cross-objection dismissed as withdrawn; cross-appeal admitted with notice.

Savitri Devi Vs United India Insurance Company Limited — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6346]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 33/2023

¶4

Savitri Devi W/o Late Shri Bulaki Suthar, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Karmisar Tehsil And District Bikaner.

¶5

Pawan S/o Late Shri Bulaki Suthar, Aged About 14 Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Smt. Savitri Devi (Cross Objection No. 02), By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Karmisar Tehsil And District Bikaner.

¶6

Vikram S/o Late Shri Bulaki Suthar, Aged About 12 Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Smt. Savitri Devi (Cross Objection No. 02), By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Karmisar Tehsil And District Bikaner.

¶7

Smt.gulli Devi @ Gullu Devi W/o Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 71 Years, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Karmisar Tehsil And District Bikaner.

¶8

Nathu Ram S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 74 Years, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Karmisar Tehsil And District Bikaner.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Pachasati Circle, Sadul Ganj, Bikaner (Raj.) (Insurance Company)

¶12

Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Megharam Suthar @ Meghraj Suthar, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Vishwakarma Chowk (Near Antiyodya Nagar), Near Dudi Petrol Pump, Bangla Nagar, Bikaner. (Owner Of Bolero No. Rj 07 Gb 2889)

¶13

Meghraj Suthar @ Megharam Suthar S/o Arjun Ram, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Vishwakarma Chowk (Near Antiyodya Nagar), Near Dudi Petrol Pump, Bangla Nagar, Bikaner. (Driver Of Bolero No. Rj 07 Gb 2889)

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

Connected With

¶16

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 505/2023

¶17

United India Insurance Company Limited

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

(2 of 4) Savitri Devi & Ors.

¶21

[2024:RJ-JD:6346]

¶22

[XOBJC-33/2023]

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Aditya Singhi for Insurance company
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Aman Bishnoi Bola for claimants Mr. H.R. Shrimali

¶25

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶26

Order

¶27

07/02/2024

¶28

In S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No.33/2023

¶29

Learned counsel for the cross-objectors submits that after filing of the present cross-objection, an appeal against the impugned award has also been preferred by the claimants being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1288/2023. He therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the present cross-objection.

¶30

The permission as sought is granted. The present crossobjection is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶31

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.505/2023

¶32

Admit. Issue notice.

¶33

Notices need not be issued as the parties are already represented by the counsels.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present is a clear case of breach of the policy and hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel submits that the vehicle in question was insured as a ‘goods vehicle’ and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger

[2024:RJ-JD:6346]

[XOBJC-33/2023]

(3 of 4)

therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner.

¶39

Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Savitri Devi & Ors.; (2013) 11 SCC 554.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while relying upon the judgment in the case of Manuara Khatun and Ors. vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh and Ors.; 2017 (4) SCC 796 , submitted that the policy in question was a comprehensive policy and not an ‘act only policy’ and the same covered the risk of six passengers, therefore, the insurance company would definitely be liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. Learned counsel submitted that even if the insurance company is exonerated, it would definitely be liable to ‘Pay and Recover’ and hence, no interim order qua the claimants at this stage deserves to be granted.

¶41

Heard on stay petition.

¶42

Keeping into consideration the fact that even if the ground as raised by learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, as held in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. K.M. Poonam and Ors.; (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 669 ,

¶43

the Insurance Company would be liable to ‘Pay and Recover’. Therefore, no interim order in favour of the insurance company against the claimants can be granted at this stage. Whether the insurance company would be entitled to recover the paid amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle in question, can be determined only after decision of the present appeal. At this

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:6346]

[XOBJC-33/2023]

stage, no interim order deserves to be granted against the claimants and hence, the stay application stands rejected.

¶48