Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3387 (RAJ)

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. MUSHTAK S/O ATEEK MIYAN

CMA/1884/2026 · 2026-04-30

Sandeep Taneja

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:18330] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1884/2026 Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office 1St Floor, Dwarka Niwas, Opposite Bwm Showroom, Kailashpuri, Tonk Road, Amer Clarks Hotel, Jaipur (Rajasthan) And Having Its Current Regional Office At- 2Nd Floor, Pavilion (Opposite To Sms Stadium) Tonk Road, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur- 302015. Through Its Constituent Attorney. (Insurance Company Pickup Vehicle No. Rj-26-Ga-3587) Non-Claimant No.3----Appellant Versus 1. Mushtak S/o Ateek Miyan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Naykon Ka Mohalla, Talkatora Tonk, Police Station Kotwali Tonk, District- Tonk (Rajasthan). 2. Mohammad Asif S/o Shafiq Khan, R/o Maliyon Ki Gali, Rajban, Tonk, Police Station Kotwali, Tonk, District- Tonk (Rajasthan). (Vehicle Driver Pickup Vehicle No. Rj-26-Ga-3587) 3. Dholyaram S/o Kanwarpal, R/o Kumharon Ka Jhopda, Village Ratanpura, Post Bapui, Tehsil Boli, District Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan. (Vehicle Owner Pickup Vehicle No. Rj-26-Ga-3587) Non-Claimants----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 30/04/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 13.03.2026 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tonk, in Claim Petition No. 280/2023 titled as Mushtak vs. Mohammad Asif & Ors. whereby the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been partly allowed and a compensation of [2026:RJ-JP:18330] (2 of 2) [CMA-1884/2026] Rs. 40,000/- was awarded in favour of claimant-respondent No. 1 Mushtak. 2. Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides that no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claim Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal, is less than rupees one lakh. 3. In view of the said provision, the present appeal, which has been filed against the impugned award whereby the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded, being not maintainable, is dismissed. 4. It is made clear that this order shall not affect other appeal(s), if any, filed by the appellant against the aforesaid impugned judgment and award. 5. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J 2 - RAVI KHANDELWAL