SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 2056

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MANGEJ SINGH – Respondent
CMA / 2530 / 2025



##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2572/2025

Rajendra Singh

----Appellant

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited

----Respondent

Connected With

1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2530/2025

2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2898/2025

3. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2989/2025

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bhandari

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal

Mr. Lalit Vyas

Mr. Raghuveer Singh Bhati

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

05/02/2026

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2572/2025

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, as per the

claim petition, respondent–claimant was traveling in a bus which

met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving, resulting

in injuries to the claimant. In response to the claim petition,

Insurance Company specifically contended that driver of the bus

did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of

the accident.

2. It is further submitted that, while adjudicating Issue No. 2,

learned Tribunal did not record any specific finding that bus in

question lacked a valid route permit or fitness certificate. The

Tribunal merely observed that, in the absence of a valid permit

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:35 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 10:57:16 PM)

##PAGE2##

(2 of 3) [CMA-2572/2025]

and fitness, the Insurance Company might have a right to recover

the awarded amount.

3. Learned counsel contends that NAW-1 (Insurance Company)

admitted that, despite service of a registered notice, no copy of a

valid permit or fitness certificate was produced. However, notice

regarding permit/fitness was issued after expiry of the insurance

policy and no evidence was produced from the Regional Transport

Officer to establish that the bus lacked a valid permit / fitness at

the time of the accident.

4. It is thus argued that the Tribunal committed a gross error of

law in deciding the claim petition without properly appreciating

and adjudicating Issue No. 2.

5. Admit.

6. Learned counsel – Mr. Vishal Singhal and Mr. Lalit Vyas have

put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 & 3, respectively

and therefore, notice need not be issued.

7. Service of notice upon respondent No.2 is dispensed with at

the risk and cost of the appellant.

8. The trial court is directed to send the record to this Court

after disbursement of compensation amount.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2530/2025

1. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company

contends that while adjudicating claim petition and deciding Issue

No. 2, the learned Tribunal in spite of the fact that there was no

valid and effective permit and fitness at the time of accident, erred

in issuing a direction to pay and recover by observing that, in the

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:35 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 10:57:16 PM)

##PAGE3##

(3 of 3) [CMA-2572/2025]

absence of a valid permit and fitness, the Insurance Company may

recover the amount, though such recovery is not a matter of right.

2. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it

appears that dispute arises out of the direction of pay and

recovery between the owner and the Insurance Company.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to stay the award.

3. Accordingly, the stay petition stands dismissed.

4. However, it is made clear that Insurance Company shall

disburse the compensation amount within a period of four weeks

from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2898/2025

1. Learned counsel - Mr. Lalit Vyas has put in appearance on

behalf of the respondent, therefore, notice need not be issued.

2. List along with connected matters.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2989/2025

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that instant

appeal has wrongly been tagged with present bunch of appeals,

therefore, the same may be detached.

2. Office is directed to detach S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal

No.2989/2025 from present bunch of appeals.

3. Office to proceed.

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J

6-9-mSingh/-

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:35 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 10:57:16 PM)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top