NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. SMT SUMAN LATA SHARMA AND ORS
CMA/1979/2000 · 2025-04-29
Maneesh Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9436 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9436 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:18108] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1979/2000 National Insurance Company Limited through Regional Manager, 10, Narain Singh Road, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus
1. Smt. Sumanlata Sharma W/O Lt. Dr. Prakash Chand Sharma, R/O Mohanpur, Thesil-Karauli.
2. Kumari Megha D/O Lt. Dr. Prakash Chand Sharma.
3. Gaurav Kumar S/O Lt. Dr. Prakash Chand Sharma
4. Smt. Mishri Devi W/O Lt. Sh. Nanagram, R/O Mohanpur. Respondent 2 & 3 minor through natural guardian mother smt. sumanlata. ----Respondents
5. Ramkumar S/O Shivnarain, R/O Bhudara dang, Karauli.
6. Puransingh S/O Mool Singh, R/O oude Tehsil-Karauli. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lakshay Sharma Mr. Prateek Madnani Ms. Vijeta Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/04/2025
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 05.08.1998 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Karauli in case No.2/96, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed.
2. During course of arguments, it transpired that in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.689/2002 filed on behalf of the claimant, the impugned award dated 05.08.1998 has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2011 and the matter was remitted
[2025:RJ-JP:18108] (2 of 2) [CMA-1979/2000] back to decide the issue No.3 afresh. In compliance of the said direction passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.689/2002, learned MACT Court passed a fresh award on
06.03.2014.
3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that against the award, dated 06.03.2014 the Insurance Company has already preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2103/2014.
4. In this view of the matter, the controversy involved in the present appeal does not survive due to subsequent development.
5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as having infructuous.
6. Parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies available under law to assail the amended award.
(MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA RANI -130