Ram Prakash vs Shri Ram General Ins. Co. Ltd. And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7161 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2282/2016 Ram Prakash S/o Shri Laxman Ram, aged about 34 years, By Caste Bawari, Resident of 87 G.B., Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

----Appellant Versus

1. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8 IPIP. RIICO, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. Nanu Ram S/o Shri Deva Ram, B/c Bawari, R/o 26-A (6 MSR) Tehsil and Police Station Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

----Respondents

3. Asha Rani W/o Shri Balvinder Singh, aged about 30 years, B/c Kaboj Sikh, R/o Ward No.4, Prem Nagar, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

4. Priya D/o Shri Balvinder Singh, aged about 6-1/2 years, B/c Kaboj Sikh, R/o Ward No.4, Prem Nagar, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) through her Natural Guardian Mother Asha Rani W/o Shri Balvinder Singh, aged about 30 years, B/c Kaboj Sikh, R/o Ward No. 4, Prem Nagar, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

----Proforma Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment

15/03/2021

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

being heard and decided finally.

The present appeal has been preferred by the owner of the

tractor against the judgment and award dated 02.09.2014 passed

by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh, District Sri

Ganganagar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 18/2012 whereby

learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No.3 exonerated the

Insurance Company to pay the compensation and awarded a sum

of Rs.6,61,500/- in favour of the claimants on account of the

accident which occurred on 17.12.2011.

(2 of 4) [CMA-2282/2016]

Learned Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties

decided the claim petition of the claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that findings of

the Tribunal on Issue No.3 are incorrect. He submits that the

driver of the tractor Nanu Ram was holding the driving license for

driving light motor vehicle and in the light of the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs.

Oriental Insurance company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663,

any vehicle which is less than 7,500 Kg weight, the person holding

a driving license for driving the light motor vehicle will be eligible

to drive the vehicle even if it is a transport vehicle or a commercial

vehicle. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in Issue No.

3 are not sustainable.

Learned counsel further submits that it has come in the

testimony of driver Nanu Ram and Owner Ram Prakash that in the

tractor trolley, the bricks were being carried to their house and the

same were not for commercial purpose. He submits that in the

cross examination of N.A.W.3 Gulshan Kumar, he admitted that

the bricks were to be used for the purpose of construction of the

house and boundary wall in the village. Learned counsel,

therefore, submits that the tractor and trolley were being used for

carrying the material to the house in the agriculture field and the

tractor was not being used for carrying the commercial goods.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

submits that the finding of the Tribunal to the extent that it is

contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) cannot be sustained. He also

(3 of 4) [CMA-2282/2016]

submits that the tractor was being used for carrying the

commercial goods and, therefore, a direction to pay the

compensation and recover the same from the owner/driver may

be passed in the present case. He further submits that there is no

finding of the Tribunal with respect to the use of the tractor for

commercial purposes. Learned counsel also relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in his favour in the cases

of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan and Ors.

Reported in 2007 ACJ 1909 and Kalim Khan vs. Fimidabee

reported in 2018 DNJ (SC) 845.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the judgment and award dated 02.09.2014 as well

as other relevant record of the case.

The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 with respect to the

fact that the owner is liable to pay the compensation is not

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

in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). In the present case, the

driver of the tractor Nanu Ram was holding the license for driving

light motor vehicle and, therefore, the same was valid as the

weight of the tractor and trolley was less than 7,500 Kg.

Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.3 is quashed

and set aside and it is held that respondent-Insurance Company

shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants in the

present case.

The argument that the tractor was being used for the

commercial purpose is also not sustainable in light of the

testimony of the driver Nanu Ram and owner Ram Prakash. In

their statements, they have categorically stated that the bricks

were being carried to their house for construction work. Although,

(4 of 4) [CMA-2282/2016]

it has not been mentioned whether the house was in the

agriculture field or not, however, it has been emphatically stated

that the tractor was not being used for commercial purposes.

Moreover, in the cross examination of N.A.W.3 Gulshan Kumar, it

has come on record that the bricks were to be used for the

construction of boundary wall etc. in the field. Therefore, the

judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent are

not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Thus, it is held that the tractor along with trolley was not being

used for the commercial purposes in the present case.

In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal is

allowed. The directions of the Tribunal in its judgment to the

extent that the compensation amount is required to be paid by the

owner Ram Prakash is quashed and set aside and it is held that

the amount of compensation should be paid by respondent No.3-

Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of

Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant in furtherance of proviso

to Section 173 of the MV Act may be ordered to be refunded.

In view of the detailed order passed in this appeal, this court

deems it appropriate to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-

deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal under proviso to

Section 173 of the MV Act. Thus, the amount should be refunded

to the appellant by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from

today.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

167-/VivekM/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)