Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Hanuman Singh And Another on 25 November, 2019
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5500/2009
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Salam Complex, Opp.
Collectorate, Hospital Road, Tonk having its Regional Office at
Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, through its
Constituted Attorney.
----Non-Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Hanuman Singh S/o Shri Prahlad, by Caste Daroga, R/o Vill.
Kakalwah, Teh. Todaraisingh, Distt. Tonk.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Jaisingh S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, R/o Vill. Devdawas, Teh. Deoli, Distt. Tonk (Owner Truck No. RJ-21-3R-6907).
-------Non-Claimant/Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment 25/11/2019 This matter has been heard and allowed in Court on 15.11.2019. However, while perusing the file later, certain new facts came into light. Therefore, the matter was ordered to be listed under the heading "to be mentioned" on 25.11.2019 `as a first case'.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant- insurance company against the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Tonk, whereby the application filed by the respondent-claimant seeking compensation on account of permanent disability suffered by him, has been allowed.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company assailed the order contending that undisputedly the (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 04:21:03 AM) (2 of 2) [CMA-5500/2009] respondent-claimant suffered injuries when he was working on thresher attached with the tractor insured with the appellant- insurance company. It was submitted that no premium was charged by the appellant-insurance company towards the liability of any person, except that of driver and the respondent-claimant not being driver, the appellant-insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the evidence on record.
A perusal of the policy, Exhibit A-1 nowhere reveals that it covered the risk of driver only and none else. Shri P.M. Kachotiya has appeared as NAW-1 on behalf of the appellant-insurance company. He has stated in his deposition, since insurance company did not charge any premium for the thresher, it did not owe any liability. He has nowhere stated that the insurance company was not liable as it did not cover risk of any person other than the driver.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company has fairly admitted that the thresher is attached with the tractor and if anybody suffers injury on account of operation of thresher, insurance company will be liable in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2017 (1) DNJ 88; Gopali Versus Bhanwar Singh.
The order impugned is well reasoned and I do not find any illegality or perversity in the same.
The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Sudha/01 (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 04:21:03 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)