✦ High Court of India · 08 Sep 2025

Office at Maker Tower Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur v. Rajesh Kumar Sarawata S/o Late

Case Details High Court of India · 08 Sep 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
08 Sep 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
2,158 words

[email protected] Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2702/2015 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Having Its Regional Office at Maker Tower Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:36002] (2 of 9) [CMA-3035/2015] through it's Constituent Attorney. ----Appellant/Non-Claimant Versus

1. Bhuli Devi W/o Late Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 52 Years,

2. Rajesh Kumar Sarawata S/o Late Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 35 Years,

3. Mahendra Kumar Sarawata S/o Late Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 32 Years, All R/o Vill. Avaniya, Police Station Bagru, District Jaipur. ----Respondents/Claimants

4. Hanuman Sahai Chaudhary S/o Shri Gangaram Chaudhary, R/o Sundalal Ki Dhani, Chood, Berisal, Teh. Maujamabad, District Jaipur (Driver of Pick-Up No. RJ-14-GC-3448)

5. Boduram Jat S/o Shri Kanaram Jat, R/o Bhadwa Ki Dhani, Vill. Hirnoda, Teh. Phulera, District Jaipur (Registered Owner of Pick-Up No. RJ-14-GC-3448)

6. Sharwanlal S/o Gangaram, R/o Bhadwa Ki Dhani, Vill. Hirnoda, Teh. Phulera, District Jaipur (Power of Attorney Holder of Pick-Up No. RJ-14-GC-3448) ----Respondents/Non-Claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Assat, Adv. for Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 08/09/2025 vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku dh vksj ls S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3035/2015 rFkk chek daiuh dh vksj ls S.B. Civil [2025:RJ-JP:36002] (3 of 9) [CMA-3035/2015] Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2702/2015 fo}ku U;k;ky; eksVj nq?kZVuk okn U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa vij ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Øe&4] t;iqj ftyk] t;iqj }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k 291@2014 ¼1271@2010½ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 03-06-2015 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh x;h gS] ftlds ek/;e ls fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZx.k dks dqy 18]15]260@& :i;s izfrdj jkf'k rFkk mDr jkf'k ij ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh fnukad 26-10-2010 ls olwyh rd 07 izfr'kr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls C;kt fnyok;k gSA vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 02-10-2010 dks lM+d nq?kZVuk esa Hkaojyky dh e`R;q gksus ij izn'kZ&20 osru izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij e`rd dh ekfld vk; 32]690@& :i;s ekuh gS] ijarq e`rd ds o;Ld iq=ksa dks e`rd ij vkfJr ugha ekurs gq, e`rd ij dsoy mldh iRuh dks vkfJr ugha ekudj O;fDrxr [kpZ dh jkf'k ds :i esa 1@2 Hkkx dh dVkSrh dh x;h gS] tcfd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj e`rd ds iq=ksa dks Hkh ml ij vkfJr ekuk tkuk pkfg, rFkk mlds O;fDrxr [kpZ dh jkf'k ds :i esa 1@3 Hkkx dh gh dVkSrh dh tkuh pkfg,A blds vfrfjDr fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ijEijkxr 'kh"kZd esa Hkh i;kZIr jkf'k ugha fnyok;h x;h gS] vr% izfrdj jkf'k esa fof/k vuqlkj o`f) djus rFkk chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fofu'p; National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors. 2020 ACJ 759 dh izfr izLrqr dh x;hA [2025:RJ-JP:36002] (4 of 9) [CMA-3035/2015] izR;FkhZ@chek daiuh ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd eq[; :i ls ;g rdZ jgk gS fd nq?kZVuk fnukad 02-10-2010 dks ?kfVr gqbZ Fkh] tcfd vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls rhu fnu i'pkr iqfyl dks ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ&8 nh x;h gS rFkk nsjh ls fjiksVZ ntZ djokus dk dksbZ mfpr dkj.k Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr dh x;h fjiksVZ lansgkLin gSA blds vfrfjDr e`rd ds o;Ld iq= tks 30 o"kZ o 27 o"kZ dh vk;q ds gSa] mUgsa e`rd ij vkfJr ekudj rFkk e`rd dh vk; esa 1@2 Hkkx dh dVkSrh dj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk dksbZ fof/kd Hkwy o =qfV ugha dh x;h gS] vr% vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku dh vihy [kkfjt dh tkosA eSaus mHk; i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA izdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gSa fd fnukad 02-10-2010 dks le; djhc 12-30 cts e`rd Hkaojyky xzke cx: ls vokf.k;ka eksVjlkbfdy ls tk jgk Fkk] rHkh lkeus ls ,d fidvi xkM+h uacj RJ-14-GC-3448 dk pkyd okgu dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pykrk gqvk vk;k vkSj Hkaojyky ds VDdj ekj nh] ftlls nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVksa ds dkj.k mldh vLirky esa bykt ds nkSjku e`R;q gks x;hA izR;FkhZ&chek daiuh ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd izdj.k esa rhu fnu dh nsjh ls fjiksVZ ntZ djok;h x;h gS] rks bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius fofu'p; Ravi vs Badrinarayan & Ors 2011 (4) SCC 693 esa ;g fl)kar vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& [2025:RJ-JP:36002] (5 of 9) [CMA-3035/2015] "21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons." ,sls esa orZeku izdj.k esa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd nq?kZVuk fnukad 02-10-2010 dks gqbZ Fkh] ftlesa e`rd dh e`R;q gksus ij mlds iq= egsUnz dqekj }kjk fnukad 05-10-2010 dks fjiksVZ ntZ djok;h x;h gSA /kkfeZd jhfr&fjoktksa ds vuqlkj e`rd ds fØ;kdeZ esa mlds ifjokjtuksa dk rhu fnol rd O;Lr jguk LokHkkfod gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij chek daiuh dk mDr rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk eq[; :i ls ;g rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk e`rd ds iq=ksa jkts'k rFkk egsUnz] ftudh vk;q Øe'k% 30 o"kZ o 27 o"kZ gS] dks e`rd ij vkfJr ugha ekuk x;k gS] ftldk dksbZ U;k;laxr o mfpr vk/kkj ugha gSA bl laca/k esa National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors. 2020 AIR (SC) 434 fofu'p; esa [2025:RJ-JP:36002] (6 of 9) [CMA-3035/2015] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd e`rdk ds nksuksa o;Ld o fookfgr iq=] os dqN Hkh vk; vftZr djrs gksa] e`rdk ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k gksus ds dkj.k eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds rgr {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus ds fy, ;kfpdk izLrqr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa vkSj vf/kdj.k dk ;g nkf;Ro gS fd os {kfriwfrZ fnyok;saA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ la[;k 2 o 3] tks e`rd ds iq= gSa] muds firk dh e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA orZeku izdj.k esa nq?kZVuk fnukad 02-10-2010 dks gksus rFkk mlesa Hkaojyky dh e`R;q gksus ds laca/k esa dksbZ fookn ugha gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k us nq?kZVuk dh fnukad dks e`rd dh vk;q 56 o"kZ rFkk ekfld vk; 32]690@& :i;s fu/kkZfjr dh gS] ftlds laca/k esa nksuksa i{kksa esa dksbZ fookn ugha gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vo/kkfjr fofu'p; National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ds vuqlkj e`rd dh iRuh o nks iq= e`rd ij vkfJr Fks] ,slh fLFkfr esa mlds O;fDrxr [kpZ ds :i esa 1@3 Hkkx dh dVkSrh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS] tcfd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk 1@2 Hkkx dh dVkSrh dh x;h gS] tks mfpr ugha gSA ,sls esa mDr dVkSrh fd;s tkus ds i'pkr e`rd dh ekfld vk; 21]793@& :i;s 'ks"k jgrh gSA e`rd vk;q 56 o"kZ gksus ls fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk 9 dk xq.kd iz;ksx esa fy;k x;k gS] tks lgh gSA e`rd dh LFkk;h izd`fr dh ukSdjh Fkh vkSj og fu;fer osru izkIr djrk Fkk] ,slh fLFkfr esa e`rd dh Hkfo"; esa vk; o`f) dk ykHk 15 izfr'kr dh nj ls fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA rn~uqlkj vk; gkfu dh x.kuk dh tkos rks ;g jkf'k 21]793x12x9=23,53,644@& :i;s laxf.kr gksrh gS rFkk blesa 15 izfr'kr [2025:RJ-JP:36002] (7 of 9) [CMA-3035/2015] Hkfo"; esa vk; o`f) dk ykHk 3]53]047@& :i;s tksM+s tkus ij ;g jkf'k 27]06]691@& :i;s gksrh gS] tcfd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk bl en esa 17]65]260@& :i;s fnyk;s gSaA vr% vk; gkfu ds en esa 9]41]431@& :i;s c<+ksrjh ;ksX; gSaA tgka rd ijEijkxr 'kh"kZd esa izfrdj jkf'k dk iz'u gS] National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 fofu'p; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& "54. ........................ It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are 41 disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads." bl izdkj mDr fofu'p; ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 31-10-2017 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mlds i'pkr Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3763/2025 fofu'p; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 24-01-2025 dks iz.k; lsBh ¼iwoksZDr½ ds fu.kZ; ds vuq:i fu.kZ; ikfjr dj nq?kZVuk ds i'pkr dalksfVZ;e dh gkfu] lEink dh gkfu o vafre laLdkj ds enksa esa izR;sd rhu o"kZ i'pkr 10 izfr'kr dh o`f) dh x;h gSA blh izdkj dk er ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Kavita Devi & Others Vs. Sunil Kumar & Another 2025 INSC 938 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; esa O;Dr fd;k gSA mDr fu.kZ; ekuuh; mPpre [2025:RJ-JP:36002] (8 of 9) [CMA-3035/2015] U;k;ky; }kjk Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors., 2018 (18) SCC 130 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)akrksa ds vuq:i fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dalksfVZ;e] izse&Lusg dks foLr`r :i ls foosfpr djrs gq, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e dks ykHknk;d o dY;k.kdkjh fof/k gksuk crkrs gq, mfpr izfrdj fu/kkZj.k ds laca/k esa er O;Dr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl izdj.k esa Hkh dalksfVZ;e dh gkfu] lEink dh gkfu o vafre laLdkj ds enksa esa iz.k; lsBh ¼iwoksZDr½ ds fu.kZ; fnukad 31-10-2017 ds vuq:i izR;sd rhu o"kZ esa 10 izfr'kr dh o`f) dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ,sls esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)kar ds vuqlkj dalksfVZ;e gkfu ds en esa izR;sd vihykFkhZ 48]400@& :i;s vFkkZr~ dqy 1]45]200@& :i;s rFkk vafre laLdkj ds en esa 18]150@& :i;s rFkk lEink dh gkfu ds en esa Hkh 18]150@& :i;s vFkkZr mDr enksa esa dqy 1]81]500@& :i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa] tcfd vf/kdj.k us mDr enksa esa dsoy 50]000@& :i;s gh fnyk;s x;s gSaA vr% mDr enksa esa dqy 1]31]500@& :i;s c<+ksrjh ;ksX; gSaA bl izdkj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk tks izfrdj jkf'k fnyk;h x;h gS] mlesa c<+ksrjh djrs gq, vihykFkhZ@nkosnkjku dqy 10]72]931@& :i;s vfrfjDr :i ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA mijksDr foospukuqlkj chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k 2702/2015 vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k 3035/2015 vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dj fo}ku U;k;ky; eksVj nq?kZVuk okn U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa vij ftyk ,oa lS'ku [2025:RJ-JP:36002] (9 of 9) [CMA-3035/2015] U;k;k/kh'k] Øe&4] t;iqj ftyk] t;iqj }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k 291@2014 ¼1271@2010½ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 03-06-2015 dks mikUrfjr djrs gq, vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk tks izfrdj jkf'k vihykFkhZx.k dks fnyok;h x;h gS] mlds vfrfjDr vihykFkhZx.k 10]72]931@& :i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxs rFkk vihykFkhZx.k mDr c<+h gqbZ jkf'k ij ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh fnukad ls olwyh dh fnukad rd 07 izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA vihyk/khu vkns'k dh 'ks"k 'krsaZ ;Fkkor jgsaxhA fo}ku vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k ;fn bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gks j[kk gS] rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk ykSVk;k tkosA MANISH SAINI /61-62 (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments