Shanti Lal vs Gatiya And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 7502 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1670/2016

Shanti Lal s/o Late Shri Ram Lal, b/c Khatik, age 57 years, r/o 583, street No. 6 Chamanpura, Police Station Hathipol District Udaipur. Presently work as proprietor Vasihnavi Gas, Partapur, Police Station Garhi, District Banswara.

----Appellant Versus

1. Gatiya s/o Naksikhada r/o Bhoyar, Police Station Lohariya, Tehsil Ghator, District Banswara.

(Driver)

2. Surya s/o Nani Mahida, r/o Bhoyar, Police Station Lohariya, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara.

(Owner)

3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Banswara, District Banswara, Head office Near Royal Motors, Panchvati, District Udaipur.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Rakesh Arora
                               Mr. Jayant Joshi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Vinay Kothari
                               Mr. Kanishk Singhvi for Mr. CS
                               Kotwani

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

17/03/2021

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant

against the Judgment and Award dated 07.05.2016 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, District Udaipur in M.A.C.

Case No. 520/2011 whereby, the claim petition filed by the

appellant/claimant has been allowed, and respondent No.2 -

Surya owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the compensation

amount in the present case. The claim-petition was preferred by

(2 of 3) [CMA-1670/2016]

the appellant on account of the injuries suffered by him in the

accident which occurred on 15.08.2010

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties,

decided the claim petition of the appellant/claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal

has committed an error while recording the finding on Issue No. 4.

He further submits that the vehicle involved in the present case

was a tempo, a commercial vehicle and the driver Gatiya was

holding a light motor-vehicle driving license. He, therefore,

submits that in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental

Insurance Company Limited(Supra), driver of the tempo was

fully eligible to drive the tempo, even if it was a commercial

vehicle. Since, the weight of tempo was less than 7500 kg, the

exoneration of the respondent - Insurance Company while

deciding Issue No. 4 is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan(Supra).

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance

Company submits that the Tribunal after adjudicating the issue on

the basis of the evidence adduced has come to the finding that the

driver of the tempo was not holding a requisite license for driving

the commercial vehicle. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the

findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 4. However, he is

not in a position to controvert 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 07.05.2016 as well as

other relevant record of the case.

(3 of 3) [CMA-1670/2016]

In the present case, the vehicle involved was a tempo and

admittedly, it was a commercial vehicle. The fact that the driver of

the tempo i.e. (Gatiya) was also holding a driving license to drive

a light motor-vehicle. The tempo was weighing less than 7500 kg.

Therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Mukund Dewangan(Supra), the driver of the tempo

i.e. (Gatiya) was fully eligible to drive the tempo, even if it was a

commercial vehicle.

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

case of Mukund Dewangan(Supra), the finding on Issue No. 4 is

set aside and it is held that Gatiya, the driver of the tempo was

eligible to drive the commercial vehicle which was insured with the

respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company.

In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal

preferred by the appellant is partly allowed. The respondent -

Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount

as ordered by the Tribunal vide Judgment dated 07.05.2016. The

amount of compensation shall be paid by the respondent -

Insurance Company within a period of eight weeks from today.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

107-Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)