[2025:RJ-JP:20224] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 21/2020 In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.667/1994 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Appellant/Non Claimant/Review Non Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Narbada W/o Late Shri Jaswant Singh 2. Kumari Aneeta D/o Late Shri Jaswant Singh, aged 29 years All Residents of C/o Shri Narain Singh, Security Officer, Yashoda Bhawan, Shiv Nagar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) ---Claimants/Respondents/Review Petitioner 3. Shri Bhairaa Ram Jat, Jodhpur (Driver Of Truck No. RPK 621) 4. Shri Shambhu Ram S/o Shri Beeja Ram, R/o 238-A, Shashtri Nagar, Jodhpur (Owner Of The Truck No. RPK- 621) ----Non-claimants/Respondents/Review non petitioner For Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 28/03/2025 1. The instant review petition is preferred by the review petitioners Smt. Narbada and Kumari Aneeta, both claimants -respondents in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.667/1994 and dissatisfied from order dated 30.05.2020. [2025:RJ-JP:20224] (2 of 6) [CRW-21/2020] 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-applicant while relying upon judgment in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Saju P. Paul and Ors.: MANU/SC/0006/2013 and Manuara Khatun and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh and Ors. : MANU/SC/0194/2017 submitted that while considering the civil appeal of national insurance company filed from award dated 17.12.1993, a Co-ordinate Bench has absolved the Insurance Company from payment of compensation which is contrary to settled principle of law. He further submitted that the matter pertains to a goods vehicle but in such a case, where deceased Jaswant Singh was sitting as a gratuitous passenger as representative of the owner of goods, particularly, as a security guard then Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants or legal heirs of deceased. He further submitted that while absolving the Insurance Company from liability to make payment, Hon’ble Court has overlooked the principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent in nature and looking to object behind the law, the review petition may be allowed and insurance company be directed to firstly satisfy the award and recover from owner and driver of vehicle. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and he submitted that this is a case of death of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and Insurance Company has not charged any premium for gratuitous passenger. He also submitted that a gratuitous passenger whether travelling as representative of owner of goods or as an employee of any [2025:RJ-JP:20224] (3 of 6) [CRW-21/2020] department is not a third party by virtue of law. He further submitted that the law over the point is well settled that Insurance Company is not liable to make payment in case any gratuitous passenger travelling in any goods vehicle is injured or died in an accident involving the goods vehicle. He placed reliance upon judgments in case of M.V. Jayadevappa and Another Vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. : (2004) 13 SCC 43, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rattani and Ors.: (2009) 2 SCC 75, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others : 2005 ACJ 721 (SC), Pramod Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. Mushtari Begum and Orthers : 2004 ACJ 1903, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Ors. : (2003) 2 SCC 223, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bhukya Tara and Ors. : (2010) 14 SCC 768 and submitted in the instant case, a Co- ordinate Bench has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company. He further placed reliance upon judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in case of Imiya (Smt.) Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. : 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 52 and submitted that the review petition is not maintainable on grounds mentioned by learned counsel for applicant. He also placed reliance upon judgment in case of Kapil Lodha Vs. The Judge, MACT, Jaipur : I (2015) ACC 407(Raj.) and submitted that under Section 169 the Motor Vehicles Act, there is not power to review except to correct typographical or clerical error in calculation. He also referred judgment in case of Sheela O.K. and Ors. Vs. New India [2025:RJ-JP:20224] (4 of 6) [CRW-21/2020] Assurance Co. Ltd. : 2018 ACJ 585 (Kerala) (DB) and submitted that review is not maintainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments as referred by learned counsels for the parties. 5. Aggrieved from award dated 17.12.1993 in Claim case No.3/1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, the Insurance Company has filed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.667/1994. 6. The facts of the case are that deceased Jaswant Singh was travelling in truck No.RPK 621 with household goods of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax from Jodhpur to Bhopal when this vehicle met with an accident, resulting in death of Jaswant Singh. As a claimants, wife, daughter and mother have claimed compensation from owner, driver and Insurance Company. An award was passed jointly and severally against the non-claimants, including insurance company. 7. The Insurance Company has contended that deceased was a paid employee of Income Tax Department and he was not an authorized passenger to travel in goods vehicle and liability of a gratuitous passenger is excluded / not covered under the insurance policy. A Co-ordinate Bench while considering the legal position has allowed the appeal on 30.05.2020 and absolved the Insurance Company from liability to make payment of compensation. 8. After the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench, instant review petition is filed to modify the award on the ground that in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Saju P. Paul and Ors.: [2025:RJ-JP:20224] (5 of 6) [CRW-21/2020] (supra) and Manuara Khatun and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh and Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed Insurance Company first to satisfy award and then to recover from owner and driver. 9. The maintainability of a review petition was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench in case of Imiya (Smt.) Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Kapil Lodha Vs. The Judge, MACT, Jaipur (supra) wherein it was held that a review in MAC Case is not maintainable. In case of Sheela O.K. and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of Kerala High Court has also dismissed the review petition. 10. In case of M.V. Jayadevappa and Another Vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), a Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in goods vehicle, the Insurance Company has no liability to make payment. Similar views were also expressed in other cases as referred by learned counsel for non-applicant/Insurance Company. 11. Here in this case, admittedly, the deceased was travelling in goods vehicle and he was a gratuitous passenger. There is no material to record to justify travelling in a goods vehicle. The evidence on record suggests that deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, and in terms of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable, hence, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has exonerated the Insurance Company on basis of legal position as discussed in order dated 30.05.2020. There is no ground to consider this review petition as the review petition is filed against [2025:RJ-JP:20224] (6 of 6) [CRW-21/2020] decision on merits by a Co-ordinate Bench. This Court sit in as an appeal in the instant case to set aside the order. 12. The legal position as referred by learned counsel for the applicant is not helpful to allow the review petition. Therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the review petition filed by the applicants-claimants is hereby dismissed. 14. Misc. application, if any, also stands disposed of. 15. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/149