Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS , decided on Tuesday, February 3, 2015.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Civil First Appeal No. 59 of 1996. ] 03/02/2015
Judge(s) : NISHA GUPTA
Advocate(s) : Virendra Agarwal, Shailash Sharma. R1 to R3, Niraj Batra.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Gurbinder Singh Cheema Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another,   14/12/2017.  

  Smriti Madan Kansagra Versus Perry Kansagra,   11/12/2017.  

  Sanjay Pandey I.P.S., B102, Patliputra CHS Ltd., Four Bungalows, Andheri (West) Versus State of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader & Others,   07/12/2017.  

  The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Madurai Versus C. Ranjitham & Others,   07/12/2017.  

  Girish Dharmchand Chordiya(Jain) Versus Neeta Sachin Chandak & Another,   06/12/2017.  

  Jaleshwar Majhi Versus State,   06/12/2017.  

  Sushil Arora & Others Versus State,   05/12/2017.  

  Prem Kumar Chhabra Versus Life Insurance Corporation Ltd.,   04/12/2017.  

  The New India Assurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus Rajamoni & Others,   04/12/2017.  

  Mohammed Mustafa Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Commissioner of Police & Another,   04/12/2017.  

  S. Ravichandran Versus S.K. Nizamuddin & Others,   04/12/2017.  

  Jaideep Ashok Gholkar Versus Rakhee Jaideep Gholkar,   30/11/2017.  

  Kamlakar Bhimrao Patil & Another Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,   30/11/2017.  

  Renu Rani Shrivastava & Another Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Others,   30/11/2017.  

  Bhamabai Versus Sudhir @ Dnyandeo Purushottam Petkar & Others,   28/11/2017.  

  Alappey Asharaf Versus Chief Minister, Govt. Secretariat & Others,   24/11/2017.  

  Yash Vardhan Mall Versus Tejash Doshi,   23/11/2017.  

  Toran Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   22/11/2017.  

  M/s. Lifelong Meditech P. Ltd. Versus M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,   22/11/2017.  

  Shanthi Versus State by the Inspector of Police, Cuddalore,   21/11/2017.  

  The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.,Ltd, Kanyakumari Versus Pandaram & Others,   21/11/2017.  

  M/s. Pacifica (India) Projects Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Oriental Cuisines (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director Srinath Raghavan, Chennai,   21/11/2017.  

  V.P. Sakthivel & Others Versus Vincent Raj & Others,   21/11/2017.  

  The Correspondent, St. John's Matric Higher Secondary School, Madurai Versus The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai & Others,   21/11/2017.  

  Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pratap Singh,   17/11/2017.  

  Dilawar Khan Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another,   17/11/2017.  

  The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Palm Road, Civil Lines Versus Sukhadeo & Another,   17/11/2017.  

  Meera Dhuria Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited & Another,   17/11/2017.  

  State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Vikas & Others ,   17/11/2017.  

  Sesa International Limited Versus Avani Projects And Infrastructure Limited & Others,   16/11/2017.  

  K.G. Versus State of Delhi & Another,   16/11/2017.  

  M/s. Emco Ltd. Through Its General Manager & Company Secretary Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,   16/11/2017.  

  Utpal Datta & Others Versus Thomas Cook (India ) Ltd.,   16/11/2017.  

  Vipin Grover & Another Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,   15/11/2017.  

  P.K. Subramanian Versus Pongiannan (deceased), Palaniammal & Others,   15/11/2017.  

  Dr. R.G. Thanki Versus Gopalbhai Kanubhai Gurjar & Others,   14/11/2017.  

  Thomas Chandy Versus The State of Kerala, Represented By its Chief Secretary & Others,   14/11/2017.  

  United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Divisional Office, Divisional Manager Versus Godabai & Others,   13/11/2017.  

  M.P. Safeeq Versus Sony Centre, Fridge House Retail Pvt. Ltd. & Another,   10/11/2017.  

  Nijamuddin Abubakar Shaikh & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another,   10/11/2017.  

  M/s. Jay Jay Shirts P Ltd Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, & Another,   09/11/2017.  

  Neelambaran Pillai Versus The Authorised Signatory, R.F. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Skyline Gateway Apartments, Pathadipalam, Edappally & Others,   09/11/2017.  

  S. Govarthanan Versus M. Suji,   08/11/2017.  

  B. Prasanna Versus P.K. Kabeer & Another,   07/11/2017.  

  Digamber Jain, Atishay Kshetra Kundalpur Public Trust, Kundalpur, M.P. Versus Study Circle Society & Others,   07/11/2017.  

  Surendra Kalia Versus Sant Shri Asharamji Manav Uttahan Trust,   07/11/2017.  

  Ashok Kumar Agrawal Versus Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,   07/11/2017.  

  Manikandababu Versus R. Geethagowri,   06/11/2017.  

  Ramdhani Ram Nath Versus The State,   06/11/2017.  

  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gopal Shill & Another,   06/11/2017.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "  2015 (2) RAJLW 1584"  ==   " 2015 (59) RCR(Civil) 767"  ==   ""  

    1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1995 passed by Additional District Judge No.1 Jaipur City Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 35/1983 whereby the suit for compensation has been decreed by the court below for the amount of Rs.30 100/-.2. The short facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that plaintiff respondent filed a civil suit to recover the amount of Rs.51 050/- as compensation on account of loss sustained by them due to damage of Jeep No. R.R.B. 5453 which was alleged to have taken place on 2.6.1992. The contention of the appellant before the court below was that the civil court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present suit as the claim has been submitted under the Motor Vehicles Act but the court below has not framed any issue and the question of jurisdiction has not been decided which goes to the root of the case hence this appeal.3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and decree as well as the original record of the case.4. In Para No. 22 of the written statement it has been specifically pleaded by the appellant that in view of provisions of Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (in short the Act of 1939) the suit is barred and not triable by civil Court and Section 110-F of the Act of 1939 reads as follows:100-F. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court.5. A plain reading of the above clearly suggests that jurisdiction of the civil court is barred as regards the claims for compensation in the accident cases and to support his contention the counsel for the appellant has submitted Chairman Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479 where it has been held as under:We have therefore no manner of doubt that this case squarely fell within the ambit of section 165 of the 1988 Act and the Claims Tribunal constituted thereunder for the area in question had jurisdiction to entertain the same. As pointed out earlier the 1988 Act and in particular the provisions in Chapter XII thereof creates a Forum before which the claim can be laid if it arises out of an accident caused by the use of a motor vehicle. That being a special law would prevail over the relevant general law such as the 1986 Act but in the instant case even that question does not arise for the simple reason that the dispute in question did not attract the jurisdiction of the National Commission whatsoever and the National Commission has not shown how it had jurisdiction. The issue was pointedly raised and for reasons best known to the National Commission it failed to come to grip with it. Surprisingly there is no discussion whatsoever in the order of the National Commission in this behalf We are therefore of the opinion that the National Commission did not have jurisdiction and as counsel for the appellant put it this was a case of unwarranted exercise of jurisdiction.6. Hence in view of the clear provisions of Section 110-F of Act of 1939 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 the civil court was not having any jurisdiction to entertain the claim of compensation caused by the use of motor vehicle and in view of the above pronouncement the court below has erred in decreeing the suit.Consequently the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree under appeal dated 22.11.1995 passed by Additional District Judge No.1 Jaipur City Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 35/1983 is quashed and set aside.Appeal allowed.