Modi Ram vs Kishan And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2743 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 676/2010

Modi Ram S/o Mangi Lal Vijayvargia, aged 65 years, Resident of Hamirgarh District Bhilwara.

----Appellant Versus

1. Kishan Giri S/o Shri Kailash Giri Goswami, resident of Indora, Tehsil Gangrar District Chittorgarh.

(Claimant)

2. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal Mali, resident of Hamirgarh District Bhilwara.

(Driver)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Office Mira Nagar District Chittorgarh.

(Insurer)

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 677/2010 Modi Ram S/o Mangi Lal Vijayvargia, aged 65 years, Resident of Hamirgarh District Bhilwara.

----Appellant Versus

1. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Uda Aheer, resident of Indora, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.

(Claimant)

2. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal Mali, resident of Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara.

(Driver)

3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Office Mira Nagar, District Chittorgarh.

(Insurer)

----Respondent S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 678/2010 Modi Ram S/o Mangi Lal Vijayvargia, aged 65 years, Resident of Hamirgarh District Bhilwara.

----Appellant Versus

1. Ratan Lal S/o Shri Gokal Giri Goswami, Resident of Indora, Tehsil Gangrar District Chittorgarh.

(Claimant)

2. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal Mali, Resident of Hamirgarh,

(2 of 5) [CMA-676/2010]

District Bhilwara.

(Driver)

3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Office, Mira Nagar, District Chittorgarh.

(Insurer)

----Respondent S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 679/2010 Modi Ram S/o Mangi Lal Vijayvargia, aged 65 years, Resident of Hamirgarh District Bhilwara.

----Appellant Versus

1. Kailash Giri S/o Shri Ram Giri Goswami, resident of Indora, Tehsil Gangrar District Chittorgarh.

(Claimant)

2. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal Mali, Resident of Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara.

(Driver)

3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Office Mira Nagar, District Chittorgarh.

(Insurer)

----Respondent S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 680/2010 Modi Ram S/o Mangi Lal Vijayvargia, aged 65 years, Resident of Hamirgarh District Bhilwara.

----Appellant Versus

1. Gokul S/o Shri Kishan Jatia Chamar, Resident of Indora, Tehsil-Gangrar District Chittorgarh.

(claimant)

2. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal Mali, Resident of Hamirgarh District Chittorgarh.

(Driver)

3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Office, Mira Nagar, District Chittorgarh.

(Insurer)

----Respondent S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 681/2010

Modi Ram S/o Mangi Lal Vijayvargia, aged 65 years, Resident of Hamirgarh District Bhilwara.

                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus




                                          (3 of 5)                  [CMA-676/2010]

1. Nana Lal S/o Shri Ram Purbia, Resident of Indora, Tehsil- Gangrar District Chittorgarh.

(claimant)

2. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal Mali, Resident of Hamirgarh District Chittorgarh.

(Driver)

3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Office, Mira Nagar, District Chittorgarh.

(Insurer) Modi Ram

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S.Nimla.

Mr. Manish Pitaliya.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

02/02/2021

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

above appeals are taken up and decided by this common order as

the issue involved in these appeals is identical.

The present appeals have been preferred against the

judgment and award dated 15.03.2010 passed by Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos.

188/2009, 187/2009, 183/2009, 184/2009, 185/2009 &

186/2009.

The above appeals have been filed by the owner of the

vehicle on the ground that after adjudicating the claim petitions,

learned Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the

offending vehicle to pay the compensation to the claimants.

Heard.

(4 of 5) [CMA-676/2010]

Briefly the facts necessary to be mentioned are that on

25.01.2006, driver of TATA 207 bearing registration No.RJ G 5792

drove the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting into the

accident. The occupants who are claimants in this case suffered

injuries and for the same, claim petitions were preferred before

the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal after framing of the issues

adjudicated the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the

claimants in the present case on the basis of evidence adduced

therein. The liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the

present appellant on the ground that the driver of TATA 207

vehicle was not holding a requisite license for driving the vehicle

which met with an accident. It was noted by the Tribunal that

requisite endorsement on the Light Motor Vehicle license of the

driver was not there. Thus, the driver was not eligible to drive

Light Transport Vehicle involved in this case. Thus, the tribunal has

awarded the compensation to be paid by the owner of the truck.

The counsel for the appellants submits that this finding of

the Tribunal on issue No.2 is not in consonance with the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Mukund Devangan V/s

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663. In the light

of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mukund Devangan (supra), the appellant cannot be fastened with

the liability to pay compensation to the claimants and the

compensation is required to be paid by the Insurance Company.

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company has

supported the judgment and award dated 15.03.2010 and

submitted that no error has been committed by the Tribunal while

deciding the issue of liability. The counsel for the Insurance

Company, however, is not in position to controvert the judgment

(5 of 5) [CMA-676/2010]

of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mukund

Devangan (supra).

Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, I

am of the view that it is an admitted position that the vehicle

involved in the present case was a transport vehicle of the make

'TATA 207'. Admittedly, the weight of the vehicle involved in the

accident is less than 7500 kg. It has also come on record that the

claimants sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on

25.01.2006. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that driver of the

truck was not holding requisite license to drive the subject vehicle

is not correct, more particularly in the light of judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Devangan (supra). The

findings recorded by the Tribunal are, therefore, liable to be set

aside and since, the transport vehicle was weighing less than 7500

kg, the driver of the offending vehicle TATA 207 bearing

registration No.RJ G 5792, which met with the accident on

25.01.2006, was competent and eligible to drive the vehicle as he

was holding requisite license to drive the light transport vehicle

which includes eligibility to drive the vehicle involved in this case.

In view of the discussions made above, the present appeals

are allowed. The finding recorded by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 15.03.2010 qua the

appellant to pay the compensation is set aside and respondent

No.3- The Oriental Insurance Company is directed to pay

compensation amount in the present cases.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

163-168 Anil Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)