Dismissed

Kailashi W/O Shankarlal, v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2025CMA/5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court held that since the deceased was the driver of the borrowed vehicle, the claim was not maintainable under Section 163-A, applying the Supreme Court judgment in Ramkhiladi.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed with any pending application left pending.

Kailashi W/O Shankarlal, Vs Icici Lombard General… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:6535]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5/2025

¶4

Kailashi W/o Shankarlal, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Village Devri, Post Gehlod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk (Raj.).

¶5

Shanarlal S/o Devlilal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Village Devri, Post Gehlod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk (Raj.).

¶6

Sarla Choudhary W/o Rajkumar, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Devri, Post Gehlod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk (Raj.).

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Second Bhagwati Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur

¶10

Budhi Prakash S/o Radha Kishan, Resident Of A-44, Ashok Nagar, Purani Chungi, Jaipur District Jaipur (Raj.) (Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. RJ-14-JT-6982).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶14

Judgment

¶15

14/02/2025

¶16

The instant civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants aggrieved from dismissal of claim petition No.346/2021 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk on 31.07.2024.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Raj Kumar @ Raju was driving a motorcycle No. RJ-14-JT-6982 and the same was hit by unknown vehicle resulted into death of Raj

[2025:RJ-JP:6535]

[CMA-5/2025]

(2 of 3)

Kumar @ Raju. He submits that the appellants have filed claim petition against owner and Insurance Company of vehicle under Section 163A of Act of 1988, wherein the Tribunal was required to pass an award only on the basis of involvement of vehicle, but the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground that deceased was in shoe of owner. He submits that the claimants are legal heirs of deceased and entitled for compensation under Section 163A of Act of 1988.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material placed on record. 4. A perusal of admitted facts indicates that deceased Raj Kumar @ Raju was himself driving the motorcycle when allegedly hit by another vehicle. The facts further indicated that the deceased, borrowed of motorcycle from owner and a claim petition was filed against registered owner and Insurance Company of motorcycle.

¶23

Here in this case, the deceased was himself driving the vehicle and the Tribunal while relying upon judgment of Ramkhiladi Vs. United India Insurance Company and Anr. :

¶24

AIR 2020 SC 527 , has opined that as per policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment when deceased himself was a driver of motorcycle.

¶25

In case of Ramkhiladi Vs. United India Insurance Company and Anr. (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in a claim petition under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, there is no need for claimants to plead or establish negligence in respect of death of the person on basis of which

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:6535]

[CMA-5/2025]

claim petition was filed. The deceased has to be a third party and a petition cannot be maintained under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 against owner / insurer of the vehicle which was borrowed by him as he is in shoe of owner.

¶30

In view of aforesaid, the claim petition was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal and there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of dismissal passed by the Tribunal. There is no ground to admit the appeal.

¶31

However, the claimants are at liberty to raise the issue of compensation under the policy, if they have any ground to procure claim.

¶32

In view of aforesaid, the instant civil miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any.

¶33

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶34

MR/5

Kailashi W/O Shankarlal, v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailashi W/O Shankarlal, v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company

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

M/S Laxmi Construction Vs Union of India

Rameez Raja S/O Shri Abdul Waheed, Vs State of Rajasthan

Daljeet Singh S/O Shri Harbhajan Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan through District Collector

Sawaimadhopur Cooperative Consumer Andanr Vs Badri Narayan Gupta

Shivam Shankhwal S/O Shri Harishchandra Shankhwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Syed Riyajuddin Chishti and or Vs Chandra Prakash and Ors.