Sunita Kumari Meghwal D/O Bheru Lal Vs Mahendra Kumawat S/O Ramswaroop Kumawat

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:14787]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6296/2026

¶4

Rajmal Meghwal S/o Ramdev Meghwal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Andhed Tehsil And District Bundi.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mahendra Kumawat S/o Ramswaroop Kumawat, R/o Badanaayagaon, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi.

¶8

1. Ramesh Kumawat S/o Ghansi Lal Kumawat, R/o Badanaayagaon, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi.

¶9

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 2Nd Floor, Bhagwati Bhawan, Government Hostel Crossing, M.i. Road, Jaipur 302001

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6306/2026

¶12

Sunita Kumari Meghwal D/o Bheru Lal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Mayja Tehsil Keshavrai Patan District Bundi.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. Mahendra Kumawat S/o Ramswaroop Kumawat, R/oBadanaayagaon, Tehsil Hindoli District Bundi.

¶16

1. Ramesh Kumawat S/o Ghansi Lal Kumawat, R/oBadanaayagaon, Tehsil Hindoli District Bundi.

¶17

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, Limited, 2Nd Floor, Bhagwati Bhawan, Government Hostel Crossing, M.i. Road, Jaipur.302001.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6324/2026

¶20

Karishma, Aged About 28 Years, W/o Bhairu Lal 2. Aastha, Aged About 3 Years, D/o Bhairu Lal

¶21

Samrat, Aged About 2 Years, S/o Bhairu Lal 4. Hajari Bai, Aged About 61 Years, W/o Nathu Lal 5. Ramghani Wd/o Prithiviraj D/o Nathu Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Petitioners-Claimants No. 2 And 3 Are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian /mother Karishma W/o Bhairu Lal. All Resident Of Village Jameetpura, Tehsil

[2026:RJ-JP:14787]

[CW-6296/2026]

(2 of 3)

Taleda, District Bundi.

¶26

----Petitioners

¶27

Versus

¶28

1. Kishan Kumar Sharma S/o Nathu Lal, R/o-Village Arnetha, Tehsil Keshavrai Patan, District Bundi - Vehicle Driver.

¶29

Brahmanand Mahavar S/o Ganesh Lal Mahavar, R/oVillage Arnetha, Tehsil Keshavrai Patan, District Bundi - Vehicle Owner,

¶30

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 2Nd Floor, Bhagwati Bhawan, Government Hostel Crossing, M.i. Road, Jaipur. 302001 - Insurer.

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ram Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)	:

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment

¶34

09/04/2026

¶35

The present batch of petitions have been filed with following

¶36

prayers:

¶37

"i-the present writ petitions may kindly be accept and allow and the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 (Anx-3) passed by the Court of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.1, BUNDI (RAJ.) in MAC No. 289/2025, Titled RAJMAL MEGHWAL VERSUS MAHENDRA KUMAWAT AND OTHERS, MAC No. 287/2025, Titled SUNITA KUMARI MEGHWAL VERSUS MAHENDRA KUMAWAT AND OTHERS, MAC No. 321/2025, Titled KARISHMA AND OTHERS VS. KISHAN KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS may kindly be quashed and set aside by way of an appropriate writ or orders;

¶38

ii- direct by way of an appropriate writ or orders that the learned Tribunal i.e. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Bundi (Raj.) may kindly be adjudicate and hear the matter;

¶39

iii- issue any other appropriate writ, orders or directions as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners-claimants.

[2026:RJ-JP:14787]

[CW-6296/2026]

(3 of 3)

iv- Cost of the present petitions may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

¶44

Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court notes that the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 is a well-reasoned and speaking order. This Court finds no material perversity or jurisdictional error in the findings recorded therein that would warrant interference.

¶45

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and taking note of the prior orders passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi and the learned Additional District Judge, Bundi this Court is of the opinion that the prayer sought for the transfer of the proceedings is not legally permissible.

¶46

Upon a query put forth by this Court, learned counsel conceded that the distance between the two concerned jurisdictions is merely 40 kilometers. This Court is of the firm opinion that such a negligible distance cannot be construed as a valid impediment or cause for hardship, especially in light of the fact that the facilities of V.C. are readily available at the respective courts to facilitate the appearance of the parties.

¶47

Accordingly, the present batch of petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 6. A copy of the present order shall be placed in the connected petitions.

¶48

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶49

JKP/12-13 & 17

Sunita Kumari Meghwal D/O Bheru Lal v. Mahendra Kumawat S/O Ramswaroop Kumawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Kumari Meghwal D/O Bheru Lal v. Mahendra Kumawat S/O Ramswaroop Kumawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srg Institute of Nursing Sciences Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chand Regar S/O Mr. Jagannath Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Meenu (Shanti Devi) W/O Shri Keshar Dev Saini Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Mahendra Singh S/O Jagdish Prasad Vs the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan

Pinki Yadav Wife of Ravish Kumar Yadav Daughter of Shri Satish Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jyoti Kumari Wife of Jitendra Kumar Daughter of Shri Satish Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan