Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Vardia Industries vs Nanda And Ors (2025:Rj-Jp:28753) on 29 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:28753]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2686/2005
M/s Vardia Industries, Old Industrial Area, Chittorgarh, through
its proprietor Smt. Kamla Vardia (since deceased),
appellant/non-claimant No.1 through her legal heirs:-
1/1 Pradeep Vardia S/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia, aged
about 61 years, R/o 28, Kabir Colony, Chittorgarh (son).
1/2 Shri Karun Vardia S/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia, aged
about 58 years, R/o 28, Kabir Colony, Chittorgarh (since
deceased) through LR's:-
1/2/1 Smt. Lalita Vardia W/o late Karun Vardia, R/o 28, Kabir
Colony, Chittorgarh.
1/2/2 Mrs. Gitika Soni D/o late Karun Vardia W/o Shri Ankit Soni
R/o 124, Shastri Nagar, Chittorgarh.
1/2/3 Mrs. Kritika Mehta D/o late Karun Vardia W/o Shri Amit
Mehta R/o Bapi, Valsad, Gujrat.
1/3 Naveen Vardia S/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia, aged
about 55 years, R/o 1, Old Industrial Area, Bhilwara Road,
Chittorgarh.
1/4 Smt. Vibha Vinaikia D/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia W/o
Shri Ramesh Vinaikia, aged about 48 years, C/o Pawan Brokers
& Jewellers, D.D.M.P. Office Road, Old Town, Alanka, Bangalore,
Karnataka. ----Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Sua Bai W/o late Shri Gheesa
2. Shivraj S/o late Shri Gheesa
3. Devlal S/o late Shri Gheesa
4. Munni D/o late Shri Gheesa
5. Chhotu S/o late Shri Gheesa
6. Jatan D/o late Shri Gheesa
No.2 to 6 minors through their mother Sua Bai, R/o Kota Dam
Ka Tapra, Police Station Dadabari, Kota.
----Claimant/Respondents
7. Narain Singh S/o Madho Singh, R/o village Jagpura, Police Station Rashmi District Chittorgarh.
8. National Insurance Company Limited, Chittorgarh through its Branch Manager. ----Non-Claimant/Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2685/2005 M/s Vardia Industries, Old Industrial Area, Chittorgarh, through its proprietor Smt. Kamla Vardia (since deceased), appellant/non-claimant No.1 through her legal heirs:-
1/1 Pradeep Vardia S/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia, aged about 61 years, R/o 28, Kabir Colony, Chittorgarh (son). 1/2 Shri Karun Vardia S/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia, aged about 58 years, R/o 28, Kabir Colony, Chittorgarh (since deceased) through LRs:-
1/2/1 Smt. Lalita Vardia W/o late Karun Vardia, R/o 28, Kabir Colony, Chittorgarh.
1/2/2 Mrs. Gitika Soni D/o late Karun Vardia W/o Shri Ankit Soni (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:12:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:28753] (2 of 9) [CMA-2686/2005] R/o 124, Shastri Nagar, Chittorgarh. 1/2/3 Mrs. Kritika Mehta D/o late Karun Vardia W/o Shri Amit Mehta R/o Bapi, Valsad, Gujrat.
1/3 Naveen Vardia S/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia, aged about 55 years, R/o 1, Old Industrial Area, Bhilwara Road, Chittorgarh.
1/4 Smt. Vibha Vinaikia D/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia W/o Shri Ramesh Vinaikia, aged about 48 years, C/o Pawan Brokers & Jewellers, D.D.M.P. Office Road, Old Town, Alanka, Bangalore, Karnataka. ----Appellants Versus
1. Balaram S/o Chhoga
2. Krishna S/o Hardev
3. Gopal S/o Hardev
4. Sattu S/o Hardev No.2 to 4 minors through Shri Bala Ram R/o Kota Dam Ka Tapra, Police Station Dadabari, Kota.
----Claimant/Respondents
5. Narain Singh S/o Madho Singh, R/o village Jagpura, Police Station Rashmi District Chittorgarh.
6. National Insurance Company Limited, Chittorgarh through its Branch Manager. ----Non-Claimant/Respondents S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2687/2005 M/s Vardia Industries, Old Industrial Area, Chittorgarh, through its proprietor Smt. Kamla Vardia (since deceased), appellant/non-claimant No.1 through her legal heirs:-
1/1 Pradeep Vardia S/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia, aged about 61 years, R/o 28, Kabir Colony, Chittorgarh (son). 1/2 Shri Karun Vardia S/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia, aged about 58 years, R/o 28, Kabir Colony, Chittorgarh (since deceased) through LRs:-
1/2/1 Smt. Lalita Vardia (Wife), R/o 28, Kabir Colony, Chittorgarh.
1/2/2 Mrs. Gitika Soni (daughter) W/o Shri Ankit Soni R/o 124, Shastri Nagar, Chittorgarh.
1/2/3 Mrs. Kritika Mehta (daughter) W/o Shri Amit Mehta R/o Bapi, Valsad, Gujrat.
1/3 Naveen Vardia S/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia, aged about 55 years, R/o 1, Old Industrial Area, Bhilwara Road, Chittorgarh (son).
1/4 Smt. Vibha Vinaikia D/o late Shri Nawal Singh Ji Vardia W/o Shri Ramesh Vinaikia, aged about 48 years, C/o Pawan Brokers & Jewellers, D.D.M.P. Office Road, Old Town, Alanka, Bangalore, Karnataka. -----Appellants Versus
1. Nanda Gurjar S/o Shri Chhatarlal, R/o Bora Bas, District Kota.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Narain Singh S/o Madho Singh, R/o village Jagpura, Police Station Rashmi District Chittorgarh.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Chittorgarh through its Branch Manager. ----Non-Claimant/Respondents (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:12:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:28753] (3 of 9) [CMA-2686/2005] For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arvind Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal Mr. Nemi Chand Jain Mr. Ritesh Kumawat for Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/07/2025
1. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the non-
claimant/appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against a common award dated 30.07.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota in the following claim petitions (i) Claim Petition No.89/2005 (165/2000), whereby due to death of Ghisa, the claim petitions were partly allowed and awarded a sum of Rs.2,23,000/- as compensation; (ii) Claim petition No.89/2005 (164/2000) on account of death of Hardev, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- as compensation; (iii) in claim petition No.89/2005 (626/2000) learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,91,190/- on account of injuries sustained by Nanda along with interest @ 6% per annum. Therefore, all the appeals are jointly heard and decided by a common order.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that three claim petitions have been filed by the claimant against the present appellant, Insurance Company and respondent- Narain Singh, while stating that on 13.02.2000, the claimant/respondent- Nanda along with Hardev and Gheesa were travelling in a dumper truck (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:12:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:28753] (4 of 9) [CMA-2686/2005] bearing registration No. RJ-09-G-1363 which was driven by non- claimant/respondent No.7- Narain Singh in rash and negligent manner in excessive speed, due to which the said dumper truck capsized and on account of the said accident, Gheesa and Hardev died and Nanda sustained grievous injuries, accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased as well as injured Nanda filed three separate claim petitions. The claim petitions were tried together and decided by the learned Tribunal by common award dated 30.07.2005.
3. Present non-claimant/appellant and non-claimant/respondent No.7 jointly filed their reply to the claim petition on 04.07.2001 wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition stating that the driver of the dumper truck had a valid and effective license. It was further stated that the dumper truck was insured with non-claimant/respondent No.8- Insurance Company, and if any liability is found due the same may be fastened upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Present non-claimant/respondent No.8- Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim petition on 28.02.2001, whereby, denied the averments made in the claim petition stating that as per the Insurance Policy, the vehicle in question i.e. dumper truck was insured for commercial purposes and not for carrying passengers. It was further stated that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess any valid and effective driving license, therefore, the Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay the compensation and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition qua insurance company.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:12:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:28753] (5 of 9) [CMA-2686/2005]
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues.
6. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined Nanda (AW-1), Sua Bai (AW-2), Ramdev (AW-3), Bala Ram (AW-4) and produced documents including FIR (Ex.1), Complaint (EX.2), Site Map (Ex.3), Mechanical Examination of the dumper truck (Ex.4), Injury Report (Ex.5), DL (Ex.6), RC (Ex.7), Insurance Policy (Ex.10), Medical Bills (Ex.13 to Ex.34) etc.
7. In rebuttal, the respondents examined Ram Prasad (NAW-1), Jagdish Prasad (NAW-2) and produced documents Ex. NA-1 to Ex. NA-3.
8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal while deciding issue No.4, exonerated the Insurance Company and awarded compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- in claim petition (165/2000); Rs.2,18,000/- in claim petition No.89/2005 (164/2000); and Rs.1,19,190/- in claim petition No.89/2005 (626/2000), all along with interest @ 6% per annum.
9. It is an admitted position that the claimants and Insurance Company has not assailed the impugned award and the present appellant (owner of the truck) has questioned the findings recorded under issue No. 4 whereby, the Insurance Company has been exonerated and liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the appellant.
10. Being aggrieved of which, the non-claimant/appellant preferred the present appeals.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:12:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:28753] (6 of 9) [CMA-2686/2005]
11. The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the offending vehicle- dumper truck was insured for non-fare paying passenger as evident from the insurance policy and he submits that the non-claimant/respondent- Insurance Company under the policy has charged additional premium for: (i) the employees amounting to Rs.60/-, and (ii) Rs. 200/- under the head of NFPP-2. He further submits that the claimant/respondents were travelling in the vehicle as non-fare paying passengers, since the premium had already been taken and the risk of the claimant/respondent was already covered by Insurance Company, therefore, the liability for payment of compensation is on the Insurance Company and the same ought not to have been fasten upon the appellant herein. He further submits that while deciding issue No. 4, learned Tribunal has not considered this germane aspect of the matter and while ignoring the fact that under the policy, the Insurance Company has charged a premium for covering the risk under NFPP, therefore, liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened upon the appellant. He further submits that since the germane issue involved in the case, qua covering the risk of non-fare paying passengers despite charging a premium, has not been considered at all by the learned Tribunal, therefore, prays that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposes the said submissions and submits that in view of the pleadings of the parties, the present claimants cannot be termed as non-fare-paying passengers. He further submits that the claimant- Nanda in his cross-examination has admitted that he (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:12:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:28753] (7 of 9) [CMA-2686/2005] was travelling in the vehicle after making payment, therefore, he cannot be termed as a non-fare-paying passenger. He further submits that the law regarding gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle is no more res integra after the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy reported in 2003 (2) SCC 339 and in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Asha Rani reported in 2001 (6) SCC 724. Therefore, he submits that there is no legal infirmity and perversity in the impugned award so as to warrant interference by this Court, and thus, prays for dismissal of the present appeals.
13. Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on record.
14. From a bare perusal of the insurance policy (Ex.NA-1), it is revealed that the truck bearing registration No. RJ-09-G-1363 was insured from 10.09.1999 to 09.09.2000 and in the present case, the accident occurred on 13.02.2000. From the bare perusal of the insurance policy (Ex. NA-1), it is reflected that the Insurance Company has charged a premium for (EMP) 4 Lab- Rs.60/- as well as for NFPP Rs. 200/-. It is also reflected that the offending vehicle- dumper truck was insured for non-fare-paying passengers but while deciding issue No.4, this aspect whether the claimants travelling in the dumper truck fall within the category of non-fare- paying passengers or not has not been considered by the learned Tribunal.
15. Since the learned Tribunal, while deciding the claim petition, has overlooked and not addressed the legal effect/ implication/ applicability of the fact that as per Ex. NA1 (Insurance Policy) the (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:12:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:28753] (8 of 9) [CMA-2686/2005] offending vehicle was insured for non-fare paying passengers (NFPP) and the insurance company had charged an additional premium of Rs. 200/- and covered the risk of NFPP or whether the claim of the claimants are covered under NFPP or not?
16. From bare perusal of the impugned award, it is reflected that the facts of the case have not been analyzed in the light of the fact that the offending vehicle truck was insured for non-fare paying passengers (NFPP) since the vital issue involved in the present matter has not been considered/ addressed by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that while maintaining the findings recorded under issue No.3 qua the quantum of the compensation the findings recorded under issue No.4 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal with a further direction to re-decide the issue No. 4 after taking note of the fact that under the insurance policy (Ex. NA-1), the offending vehicle- dumper truck was insured for non-fare paying passengers and what is the legal effect of the payment of said premium in the light of pleadings and evidence already available on record.
17. That so far as the other submission of the appellant that in view of the death certificate (filed alongwith Application under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) of proprietor Nawal Singh it is reflected that Nawal Singh expired on 05.02.2002, therefore, the appellant remained unrepresented or award is a nullity. It is evident from the record of the case that the counsel representing the appellant never informed the Tribunal under Order 22 Rule 10A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 about the death and continue to effectively participate in the proceedings. (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:12:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:28753] (9 of 9) [CMA-2686/2005] Therefore, it can not be said that either the appellant was unrepresented or award is a nullity. However, the application dated 24.11.2005 filed under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed and death certificate is taken on record.
18. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal qua Issue No.4 is set aside. Learned Tribunal is directed to re-decide issue No.4 after considering the legal effect/ implication/ applicability of charging an additional premium of Rs. 200/- under the head of NFPP in the facts and circumstances of the case.
19. It is also made clear that this Court has not made any observation about the legal effect/ implication/ applicability of charging an additional premium of Rs. 200/- under the head of NFPP, therefore, the learned Tribunal should decide the case independently without being influenced by this order.
20. Since the accident in question occurred on 13.02.2000, to avoid further delay, all the parties to the appeal are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 19.08.2025. The learned Tribunal is directed to re-decide the issue No. 4 only, within a period of four months from today in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
21. The record of the Court below be sent back immediately.
22. Accordingly, all the appeals are partly allowed in the directions passed hereinabove.
(MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-31-33 (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:12:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)