Bhundaram And Anr vs Smt. Dhalki And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6355 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 88/2014

1. Bhunda Ram s/o Buddha Ram

2. Buddha Ram s/o Rana Ram, b/c Patel, r/o Singari, Tehsil Rohat, Dist. Pali (Raj.)

----Appellants Versus

1. Smt. Dhalki w/o Late Banshilal

2. Bhimaram s/o Late Banshilal

3. Sukhdev s/o Late Banshilal

4. Smt. Teejo w/o Khetaram b/c Suthar, r/o Kalali, Tehsil Rohat, Dist. Pali

5. ICICI Loambard General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. branch office, Gulilda Bhawan 1st floor, Plot No. 9-A/B/3rd Ratanade, Jodhpur

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 87/2014

1. Bhunda Ram s/o Buddha Ram

2. Buddha Ram s/o Rana Ram, b/c Patel, r/o Singari, Tehsil Rohat, Dist. Pali (Raj.)

----Appellants Versus

1. ICICI Loambard General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. branch office, Gulilda Bhawan 1st floor, Plot No. 9-A/B/3rd Ratanade, Jodhpur

2. Miss Savita d/o Late Champalal @ Sampat Singh

3. Miss Durga d/o Late Champalal @ Sampat Singh

4. Dilip singh s/o Late Champalal @ Sampat Singh

5. Bhagyashri d/o Late Champalal @ Sampat Singh all b/c Rajpurohit r/o Village Roopawas, Tehsil Sojat Dist. Pali

6. Smt. Sanju Kanwar w/o Shankar Singh d/o d/o Late Champalal b/c Rajpurohit r/o Village Roopawas, Tehsil Sojat Dist. Pali

7. Smt. Leela Kanwar w/o Kishan Singh d/o Champalal, b/c Rajpurohit, r/o Village Kudi, Tehsil Looni, Dist. Jodhpur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Akshay Tiwari
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Devendra Singh Bhati
                               Mr. Vinay Kothari

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

03/03/2021

(2 of 4)

The present appeals have been preferred by the appellants

against the Judgment and Award dated 29.07.2013 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (Raj.) in M.A.C.T. Case No.

80/2008 (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 88/2014) and M.A.C.T. Case

No. 92/2008 (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 87/2014) whereby, the

Tribunal while deciding the claim-petition gave a direction to the

respondent - Insurance Company to pay the compensation

amount and recover the same from the owner and driver of the

vehicle which was involved in the accident.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties,

decided the claim petition of the appellants.

The present appeals have been preferred by owner Bhunda

Ram - driver of the vehicle which met with an accident which

occurred on 11.01.2008. The vehicle which was involved in the

accident was a tempo i.e. a light transport vehicle. The Tribunal

while adjudicating the claim-petition held that the driver of the

tempo was holding a requisite driving license to drive the light

motor-vehicle and therefore, he was not competent to drive the

transport vehicle. In these circumstances, although the liability of

paying the compensation was fastened on the respondent -

Insurance Company but it was ordered that the Insurance

Company first to pay the compensation and recover the same

from the driver and owner i.e. appellants.

Mr. Akshay Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants submits

that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the

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

Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company

Limited(Supra). He further submits that admittedly, the weight

(3 of 4)

of the tempo was less than 7500 kg and therefore, the appellant

was competent to drive the same as he was holding a requisite

license to drive the light motor-vehicle.

In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the

case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the direction to pay the

compensation and recover the same from the present appellant

cannot be made and thus, the finding of Tribunal to that extent

may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance

Company submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error

as the law prevailing at the time of passing of the judgment was

taken into consideration and the Tribunal after adjudicating the

issue on the strength of evidence adduced before it rightly decided

the claim-petition. Therefore, same does not require any

interference by this Court. However, he is unable to controvert the

fact of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Mukund Dewangan (Supra).

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the Judgment and Award dated 29.07.2013 as well as

other relevant record of the case.

The appeals are only to the extent of exonerating the

present appellants i.e. driver and owner of the vehicle on the

strength of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case

of Mukund Dewangan (Supra). The Tribunal has non-suited the

driver of tempo on the ground of having a license of light motor-

vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal that the driver of tempo was

not competent to drive the transport vehicle is set aside as the

same is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

Thus, the direction of the Tribunal to the extent that the Insurance

(4 of 4)

Company shall first pay the compensation and recover the same

from the appellant is quashed and set aside. The direction to

recover the compensation amount from the owner and driver of

the vehicle in this case is therefore set aside. The Insurance

Company shall pay the entire amount of compensation.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

130-131-Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)