Ranveer Singh And Anr vs Murad Kha And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 7341 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2676/2017

1. Ranveer Singh Son Of Laburam, aged about 58 years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Deh Road, Near Shri Hanuman Temple, Tehsil Nagaur, District Nagaur.

(Driver Of Tractor No. Rj-21 Rd 9859)

2. Suresh Kumar Son Of Sohanlal, aged about 40 years, By Caste Aacharya Bharhmin, Resident Of Nimbi Jodha, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur.

(Owner Of Tractor No. Rj-21 Rd 9859)

----Appellants Versus

1. Murad Kha Son Of Ismail Kha, aged about 42 years.

2. Smt. Mehfuli Wife Of Murad Kha, aged about 40 years.

All By Cast Kayamkhani, Resident Of Fagli, Tehsil Nagaur, District Nagaur.

3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, E.p.i.p.

Ricco, Sitapura Jaipur.

                              (Insurer Of Tractor No. Rj-21 Rd 9859)
                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. Manish Shishodia
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Vipul Singhvi



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                Judgment

16/03/2021

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

matter is heard and decided.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants

against the Judgment and Award dated 19.07.2017 passed by the

MACT, Nagaur in M.A.C. Case No. 60/2015 whereby, the claim

petition filed by the claimants has been allowed, an amount of Rs.

3,28,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the

(2 of 4) [CMA-2676/2017]

respondents/claimants. The Tribunal has directed to recover the

same from the present appellants and respondent - Insurance

Company has been exonerated.

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 awarding the

compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,28,000/- under various heads

in favour of the respondents/claimants.

The present appeal has been filed by the driver and owner of

the Tractor No. Rj-21 RD 9859 which was involved in the accident

which occurred on 19.12.2014.

The solitary ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the

appellants is that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue

No. 2 is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the appellants

submits that the driver of the tractor was holding a driving license

of light motor-vehicle. The Tribunal has held that since the tractor

was used for the commercial purposes for which no premium was

paid and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay

the compensation in the present case. He further submits that the

findings of the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble

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

Insurance Company Limited(Supra). He, therefore, prays that

the findings on issue No. 2 may be quashed and set aside and the

compensation may be ordered to be paid by the respondent -

Insurance Company.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance

Company vehemently opposed the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the findings of

the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 do not suffer from any infirmity as the

(3 of 4) [CMA-2676/2017]

Insurance Company has taken the premium only for the purpose

of tractor being used for the agricultural purposes. It has come in

evidence that the tractor was being used for commercial purposes

carrying the goods (wooden logs) in the trolley attached with it

and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the

compensation. However, he is not in a position to controvert the

fact of the judgment of Hon'ble 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 19.07.2017 as well as the

other relevant documents of the case.

The Tribunal has recorded the findings on Issue No. 2 that at

the time of accident the tractor was attached with the trolley and

the same was carrying wooden logs. Since, the tractor was being

used for commercial purposes, the driver of the tractor was not

eligible to drive the commercial vehicle and thus, the license of

light motor-vehicle will not cover the eligibility condition of the

driver to drive the commercial vehicle. Therefore, as per the

Tribunal the owner and driver were liable to pay the compensation

in the present case. In the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if a person holds a driving

license of light motor-vehicle and if the motor-vehicle driven is

less than 7500 kg in weight then the driver holding the license to

drive light motor-vehicle is eligible to drive that vehicle, even if

the same is a transport or a commercial vehicle.

Admittedly, the weight of the tractor and trolley was less

than 7500 kg and the appellant-driver Ranveer Singh was

competent to drive the tractor in the present case. In view of the

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

(4 of 4) [CMA-2676/2017]

Dewangan (Supra), the findings of the Tribunal are not

sustainable. The same are therefore, quashed.

In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal

preferred by the appellants is allowed. The respondent -

Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount as

ordered by the Tribunal in its Judgment dated 19.07.2017. The

amount of compensation shall be paid by the respondent -

Insurance Company within a period of eight weeks from today.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

202-Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)