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)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.