2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14166
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
ARUN MONGA
SENI KANWAR – Appellant
Versus
BALVEER SINGH – Respondent
CMA / 1157 / 2019
[2025:RJ-JD:22235]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1157/2019
1. Seni Kanwar W/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
2. Mst. Khushbu Kanwar D/o Narayan Singh, Aged About
10 Years, (Minor) Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seni Kanwar Appellant No. 1. B/ c Rajput, R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
3. Parvat Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 8 Years, (Minor) Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seni Kanwar Appellant No. 1. B/c Rajput, R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
4. Kishore Singh S/o Sabal Singh, Aged About 58 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
5. Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar W/o Kishore Singh, Aged About
56 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Purohito Ka Bas, Jaitiwas, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
----Appellants Versus
1. Balveer Singh S/o Bhairsingh, B/c Rawat, R/o 3 Jhuntha Ka Bas, Ps Javaja, District Ajmer. (Driver)
2. Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Dhanna Singh, B/c Rawat, R/o Shahpura, Post Atitmand Beawar, Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer. (Owner)
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Sbbj Jaipur, Near Main Branch, Krishi Mandi Road, Merta City, District Nagaur. (Insurer)
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prashant Panwar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Joshi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/05/2025
1. Aggrieved by the judgment / award dated 29.01.2019 rendered in MAC Case No.3/2016 vide which the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed claim petition, the claimants are before this Court in the instant appeal. They seek quashing of the award and consequently the adequate compensation.
2. Brief facts first. A claim petition was filed seeking compensation due to the death of Narayan Singh in a road accident on 24.05.2015. On the ill-fated day, Narayan Singh and Sadiq Khan were traveling by motorcycle (Registration No. RJ-19- 11M-9189) from Jaitiwas to Kaparada. Near Balasati Fanta on National Highway No. 112, a Tavera car (Registration No. RJ-01- UA-0280) owned by respondent No.2 and allegedly driven by respondent No.1 in reckless manner and at high speed, struck them from behind. Both riders sustained grievous injuries leading to their death.
2.1 The appellants (claimants) herein filed claim petition MAC No. 03/2016 and sought compensation of ₹67,80,000 under various heads for the death of Narayan Singh. Another claim petition MAC No. 01/2016 for compensation was filed by the legal representatives of Sadiq.
2.2 While respondents No.1 and 2 did not submit any written statement, respondent No.3, the insurer, filed its response.
2.3 After consolidating both the claim petitions—one by Sahabudeen and others (No. 1/2016) and another by appellants herein i.e. Smt. Seni Kanwar and others (No. 3/2016), the Tribunal framed five issues, English translation of which is as under :-
“1. Whether on 24.05.2015, the driver of the Tavera vehicle bearing registration number RJ-01 UA-0280, Balveer Singh, caused the accident by driving the vehicle negligently, at high speed, and carelessly, resulting in the death of Mr. Sadiq Khan and Narayan Singh? — Petitioners' burden.
2. Whether at the time of the accident, Respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle under the employment and control of Respondent No.2 (the vehicle owner) and for the benefit of the owner? — Petitioners'
burden.
3. Whether the Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) is not liable to pay compensation based on the objection