Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
New India Assurnce Co Ltd vs Smt Saroj Kejriwal And Ors on 7 September, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3701/2007
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Jaipur
Regional Office:330000, 2nd Floor, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur
(Raj.) 302015
-------Appellant/Non-Claimant No.2/ Insurer of Car No. RJ-
14/1C-7211
Versus
1. Smt Saroj Kejriwal W/o Late Pradeep Kumar Kejriwal, aged 39
years;
2. Suhani Kejriwal, D/o Late Pradeep Kumar Kejriwal, aged 15
years (minor) through natural guardian and mother Smt. Saroj
Kejriwal
3. Vivek Kejriwal S/o Late Pradeep Kumar Kejriwal, aged 13
years (minor) through natural guardian and mother Smt. Saroj
Kejriwal
4. Smt. Pushpa Kejriwal W/o Late Saya Narain Prasad Kejriwal,
aged 58 years,
all R/o K-23-B, Durgadas Path, Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
(Raj.)
---Respondents/claimants
5. M/s Kejriwal Hotels Ltd., J-1, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.) at present K-23-B, Durgadas Path, Malviya Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) through its Director Dilip Kumar Kejriwal S/o Late Satya Narain Prasad Kejriwal
----Respondent/non-claimant No.1/owner of car No. RJ-14/1C- 7211
6. Om Prakash Periwal, s/o Kanti Ram Periwal, C/o Laxmi Auto Store, Gangashahar Road, Bikaner (Raj.)
---Respondent/non-claimant No.3/owner of Truck No. RSF-1865
7. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Jaipur Regional Office, Sahara Chambers near Nehru Place, Tonk Road Jaipur
----Respondent/non-claimant No.4/Insurer of Truck No. RSF- 1865
Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 588/2008
1. Saroj Kejriwal W/o Pradeep Kejriwal, aged 39 years;
2. Suhani Kejriwal, D/o Pradeep, aged 15 years (minor) through (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:14:36 AM) (2 of 6) [CMA-3701/2007] natural guardian and mother Smt. Saroj Kejriwal
3. Vivek Kejriwal S/o Pradeep, aged 13 years (minor) through natural guardian and mother Smt. Saroj Kejriwal
4. Pushpa Devi W/o Satya Narain Prasad, aged 58 years, all R/o K-23-B, Durgadas Path, Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) at present R/o Sevoke Road, Siliguri.
----Appellant/Claimants Versus
1. M/s Kejriwals Hotels Ltd., J-1 Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur through Regional Manager
3. Om Prakash Periwal through Laxmi Auto Store G.S. Road, Bikaner
4. The United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Regional Office, Vishal Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur through Regional manager
----Respondents/Non-Claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal for Insurance Company ( In CMA No. 3701/2007) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur (Mr. Sandeep Mathur is petitioner in CMA No. 588/2008) Mr. Kartar Singh for Mr. Pritam Bijlani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment 07/09/2022 Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award, hence, the same are being decided together.
Both the misc. appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 27.07.2007 passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 810/2004 (729/97) by (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:14:36 AM) (3 of 6) [CMA-3701/2007] which the claim petition filed by the claimants has been allowed and a claim of Rs. 11,30,000/- has been awarded in their favour.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased was a Promoter in the Company and the offending vehicle was registered in the name of the Company, hence he cannot be treated as a third party. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to make any sort of compensation to the claimants and the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated 27.07.2007 passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court.
Counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in the capacity of an employee of the company, hence he was rightly treated as a third party and the Tribunal has not committed any error in directing the Insurance Company to make payment of compensation to the claimants.
In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and Anr., reported in 2013 (1) TAC 1 (SC). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, no interference of this Court is warranted in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Counsel further submits that the amount awarded by the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:14:36 AM) (4 of 6) [CMA-3701/2007] Tribunal is quite meager, hence, the same needs suitable enhancement by this Court.
Counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that already exorbitant amount of compensation has been granted by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants, so no interference of this Court is warranted for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
Heard.
Considered the arguments raised by the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
Perusal of the award in challenge indicates that the Tribunal has passed the award on the basis of the evidence available on the record and looking to the fact that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in the capacity of an employee of the company, the Tribunal has not committed any error in treating him as a third party.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra) has dealt with the identical issue involved in this appeal in para No. 19 as under:-
"It is extremely important to note here that till 31st December, 2006 the Tariff Advisory Committee and, thereafter, from 1st January, 2007, IRDA functioned as the statutory regulatory authorities and they are entitled to fix the tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the policies by all insurance companies. The High Court had issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and the IRDA to explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the "comprehensive/ package policy". Before the High Court, the Competent Authority of IRDA had stated that on 2nd June, 1986, the Tariff Advisory Committee had issued instructions to all the insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of a scooter/motorcycle under the "comprehensive policy" and the said position continues to be in vogue till date. It had also admitted that the "comprehensive policy" is presently called a "package policy". It is the admitted position, as the decision (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:14:36 AM) (5 of 6) [CMA-3701/2007] would show, the earlier circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 continue to be valid and effective and all insurance companies are bound to pay the compensation in respect of the liability towards an occupant in a car under the "comprehensive/package policy" irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The competent authority of the IRDA was also examined before the High Court who stated that the circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 of the Tariff Advisory Committee were incorporated in the Indian Motor Tariff effective from 1st July, 2002 and they continue to be operative and binding on the insurance companies. Because of the aforesaid factual position, the circulars dated 16th November 2009 and 3rd December, 2009, that have been reproduced hereinabove, were issued."
The aforesaid issue has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case. Thus, this Court cannot take any other view than the view already taken by the Hon'Ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra).
Hence, there is no force in the appeal No. 3701/2007 filed by the Insurance Company and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
So far as the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is concerned, there is no further scope to entertain this appeal because the Tribunal has already awarded appropriate amount of compensation under all heads. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is "just and proper". Hence, no further interference of this Court is required.
Thus, the appeal No. 588/2008 filed by the claimants is also dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:14:36 AM)
(6 of 6) [CMA-3701/2007] Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in the connected file also.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ritu/52-53 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:14:36 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)