Smt. Munna Bai vs Pramod Rao And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6186 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1454/2016

Smt. Munna Bai wife of Babu Lal, by caste Meena, resident of Paduna Falla, Upala Khera, Gadera Ghati, Goverdhan Vilas Police Station, Udaipur, District Udaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Pramod Rao son of Shri Janaku Ji Rao, by caste Gorpade, resident of Gudigada Ka Nama, Kampu Police Station, District Gwalior [MP].

2. M/s. Mahindra @ Mahindra Limited, through its vice President Anupama bhatnagar, Mumbai.

3. Ravi Appu Kutan son of Appu Kutan, by caste nayar,a resident of J Bharat Society, Sunder Bagh, Mumbai-70 Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai [Maharashtra].

4. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company, Udaipur, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                ----Respondents



For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. G.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Santosh Choudhary



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                    Order

02/03/2021

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is being heard and disposed of.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal No.1, Udaipur in MACT Case No.1167/2010 whereby the

learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No.2 exonerated the

(2 of 3) [CMA-1454/2016]

Insurance Company and awarded a sum of Rs.1,38,800/- in

favour of the claimants on account of the injury suffered by the

appellant in the accident which occurred on 27.3.2010.

Learned Tribunal after framing of the issues, evaluating the

evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, decided

the claim petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of

the Tribunal on issue no.2 is erroneous for the reason that the

driver was holding a requisite licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle

and the vehicle involved was a pick up which is a commercial

vehicle. He submits that in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s

Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14

SCC 663, if the weight of the vehicle is less than 7500kg, then

the licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle will be a requisite licence

to drive that vehicle whether it is commercial or otherwise.

Admittedly, in the present case, the weight of the pick up was less

than 7500 kg, therefore, the driver of the pick up was competent

to drive the said vehicle.

Learned counsel further submits that on account of the injury

suffered by the appellant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.1,38,800/-, therefore same is required to be enhanced

appropriately.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the

relevant evidence brought before it and after evaluating the same,

awarded the compensation which can be considered as a 'just

compensation' and therefore, same does not require any

interference by this Court.

(3 of 3) [CMA-1454/2016]

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone

through the impugned judgment and award as well as the relevant

record of the case.

The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.2 is required to be set

aside in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) wherein it has been held

that if a person is holding licence to drive the light motor vehicle,

then the driver will be eligible to drive all the motor vehicles

whether commercial or otherwise which are having weight less

than 7500kg. In the present case, since weight of the pick up

vehicle was less than 7500kg, therefore, the driver of pick up was

competent to drive the vehicle as the driver was holding the

requisite licence to drive light motor vehicle. Thus, the finding on

issue No.2 is set aside and the Insurance Company is liable to

compensate the claimant in the present case.

As far as the enhancement of the amount in the present case

is concerned, if a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded in

addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, then the

same will constitute a just compensation.

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed with a

direction to the Insurance Company to pay the entire amount

awarded by the Tribunal as per the terms of the judgment dated

27.11.2015 and will also pay a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/-

as an enhanced amount in the present case within a period of six

weeks from today.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

C-2-praveen/payal

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)