Manju (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Addl. District and Session Judge and ors.

Manju (Smt.) and ors. vs Addl. District and Session Judge and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 19, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/766362

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/766362
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Ashok Parihar, J.
Decided On: Sep 19, 2006
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manju (Smt.) and ors.

Respondent

Addl. District and Session Judge and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Banwari Lal v. Gopi Ram
Reported In: RLW2007(1)Raj40

Excerpt

- ashok parihar, j.1. in a case of death, additional district & sessions judge (fast track) no. 4, ajmer passed an award dated 1.7.2005, determining the claim for compensation to the tune of rs. 4,58,000/- in favour of the petitioners claimants. the disbursement of the amount to the claimants, however, could be made only after the owner of the vehicle furnishes surety of the amount for recovery by the insurance company.2. the controversy has been decided by the apex court to the extent that insurance company is always free to recover the amount from the owner but in view of the judgment of this court in the case of banwari lal v. gopi ram 2005(2) dnj (raj.) 781, the conditions so imposed by the trial court appear to be wholly unreasonable. the claimants should not be made to suffer only because of the default of the owner of the vehicle. the insurance company can always recover the amount from the owner in accordance with law but the claimants cannot be denied disbursement till any surety is submitted by the owner. in the given cases, the owner may not appear before the court at all or may avoid proceedings. in such eventualities, the claimants cannot be denied compensation, whereas, the prime consideration in such matters is the interest of the claimants.3. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. since the amount determined by the trial court has already been deposited by the insurance company, the same may now be disbursed to the claimants petitioners as per the award referred to above. so far as recovery of the amount from the owner is concerned, the trial court may proceed in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

Ashok Parihar, J.

1. In a case of death, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Ajmer passed an award dated 1.7.2005, determining the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,58,000/- in favour of the petitioners claimants. The disbursement of the amount to the claimants, however, could be made only after the owner of the vehicle furnishes surety of the amount for recovery by the Insurance Company.

2. The controversy has been decided by the Apex Court to the extent that Insurance Company is always free to recover the amount from the owner but in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Banwari Lal v. Gopi Ram 2005(2) DNJ (Raj.) 781, the conditions so imposed by the trial court appear to be wholly unreasonable. The claimants should not be made to suffer only because of the default of the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Company can always recover the amount from the owner in accordance with law but the claimants cannot be denied disbursement till any surety is submitted by the owner. In the given cases, the owner may not appear before the court at all or may avoid proceedings. In such eventualities, the claimants cannot be denied compensation, whereas, the prime consideration in such matters is the interest of the claimants.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Since the amount determined by the trial Court has already been deposited by the Insurance Company, the same may now be disbursed to the claimants petitioners as per the award referred to above. So far as recovery of the amount from the owner is concerned, the trial Court may proceed in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2006 Same Parties Manju (Smt.) and ors. vs Addl. District and Session Judge and... Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Ashok Parihar, J.

Motor Vehicles