Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhunda Ram And Anr vs Babu Lal And Anr on 3 March, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5391/2011
1. Bhunda Ram s/o Buddha Ram b/c Patel, age about 23 years,
r/o Singari, Tehsil Rohit, Dist. Pali (Raj.)
2. Buddha Ram s/o Rana Ram, b/c Patel, age about 55 years, r/o
Singari, Tehsil Rohit, Dist. Pali (Raj.)
(Non petitioner No. 1 and 2)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Babu Lal s/o Bhura Ram b/c Sain (Nai) r/o Village Kalaji,
Tehsil Rohit, Dist Pali (Raj.)
(petitioner)
2. ICICI Loambard General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. branch
office, Jodhput (Raj.)
(non petitioner No. 3)
----Respondent
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
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants
against the Judgment and Award dated 14.09.2011 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (Raj.) in M.A.C.T. Case No.
131/2008 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.
(2 of 4) [CMA-5391/2011]
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 appeal has 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
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.
(3 of 4) [CMA-5391/2011]
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 14.09.2011 as well as
other relevant record of the case.
The appeal is 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
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. It is made
clear that in furtherance of the Tribunal's order, if any amount has
been paid by the appellants to the respondent - Insurance
(4 of 4) [CMA-5391/2011]
Company, the Insurance Company shall refund the same within a
period of six weeks from today.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
129-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
