Allowed the appellant's appeal. The High Court placed a claim worth Rs. 1,00,000 rejected under S. 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It held that the natural representative can file an appeal.
The appeal was allowed and the impugned order accepted as correct.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:9211]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2735/2015
Nos. 3 to 7 are minor through their natural guardiant their mother Smt. Kamlesh.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondent
(2 of 4)
| [2025:RJ-JP:9211] | (2 of 4) [CMA-2735/2015] |
|---|---|
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. |
| For | : Mr. P C Sharma, Adv. |
| Respondent(s) | Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha, Adv. Mr. Rajdeep Rathore, Adv. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order
03/03/2025
vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku }kjk ;g vihy /kkjk 173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds rgr U;k;ky; eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] /kkSyiqj ¼fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k] MdSrh izHkkfor {ks=] /kkSyiqj½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k 28@2008 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 27-03-15 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls nkosnkjku dk Dyse varxZrr /kkjk 163 , eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e Lohdkj dj 1]00]000 @& :i;s] tks fd chek/ku Fkk] fnykbZ xbZ rFkk 'ks"k nkok [kkfjt fd;k x;kA
vihyk/khu fu.kZ; o vokMZ ds fo:) vkjksfir okgu ds Lokeh] pkyd o chek dEiuh dh vksj ls dksbZ vihy izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA
lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd erd fnukad 24-10-07 dks viuh eksVjlkbZFdy vkj ts 11@1,e@6816 ls xarO; LFkku ij tkrs le; jsyos dzksflax dks dzksl dj jgk Fkk vkSj Vªsu vkus ds nkSjku mldh nq?kZVuk esa eR;q gks x;hA ekSds ij jsy QkVd ekStwn Fkk fQj Hkh e`rd }kjk jsyos ykbZu dzksl djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA
[2025:RJ-JP:9211]
[CMA-2735/2015]
(3 of 4)
fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk okgu ds Lokeh ds laca/k esa chek ikWfylh esa of.kZr lhek rd 1]00]000@&:i;s fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k vkSj ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd pwafd nq?kZVuk ds le; vkjksfir okgu dk erd Lo;a Lokeh o dCtk/kkjh Fkk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa og rrh; i{kdkj ugha gks ldrk vkSj mldk nkok [kkfjt fd;k x;kA
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Ningamma & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance co. Ltd. 2009(13) SCC 710 rFkk Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi& Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 736 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 163, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds rgr rrh; O;fDr ds fo:) gh ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; gSA orZeku ekeys esa chfer okgu Lo;a erd ds LokfeRo dk Fkk rFkk ogh ml okgu dks ?kVuk ds le; pyk jgk Fkk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa og Lokeh ds lkFk lkFk vksD;wisaV Hkh Fkk vkSj bl dkj.k ls Lokeh Lo;a vius fo:) ;kfpdk izLrqr djus gsrq l{ke ugha gSA bl izdj.k esa dksbZ r`rh; i{kdkj ugha gS ftlds fo:) ;kfpdk izLrqr dh tk ldrhA
mijksDr fof/kd O;oLFkk ds e/;utj fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; o vokMZ iw.kZr% rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i gS vkSj mlesa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA
mijksDr foospukuqlkj izLrqr vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSa rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; o vokMZ dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA
LFkxu ,oa vU; dksbZ izkFkZuk&i= ;fn yfEcr gksa rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd, tkrs gSaA
[2025:RJ-JP:9211]
(4 of 4) [CMA-2735/2015]
fo}ku vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k ;fn bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gks j[kk gS rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk ykSVk;k tkosA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
Murari Lal Sharma /74
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act when the original claimant was alive at the time of the Supreme Court decision in earlier precedents.
Whether the original order in the present case required the next of kin to appear as a legal requirement due to the claimant being alive and entitled to contest the claim.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ningamma & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance co. Ltd.Relied on¶32
Ningamma & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance co. Ltd. 2009(13) SCC 710 · Who else cites this
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi& Ors.Relied on¶32
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi& Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chhatariya
United India Insurance Company Limited
Uma Shanker Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
