Kishan Gehlot vs Megha Ram And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 15362 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1836/2006

Kishan Gehlot S/o. Shri Dungar Singh, Aged about 30 years, B/c Gehlot, R/o. House No.44, Rajendra Nagar, Pali, District Pali.

---Owner of the Vehicle

----Appellant Versus

1. Jeevraj S/o. Pukhraj, B/c Bhramin, R/o. Tewali, Tehsil & District Pali.

---Claimant

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Head Office, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

---Insurer

3. Megha Ram, S/o. Lala Ram, B/c Devasi, R/o. Sukarlai, P.S. Rohat, District Pali.

---Driver

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1837/2006 Kishan Gehlot S/o. Shri Dungar Singh, Aged about 30 years, B/c Gehlot, R/o. House No.44, Rajendra Nagar, Pali, District Pali.

---Owner of the Vehicle

----Appellant Versus

1. Megha Ram, S/o. Lala Ram, B/c Devasi, R/o. Sukarlai, P.S. Rohat, District Pali.

---Claimant

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Head Office, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

---Insurer

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot for Mr. Rajesh Panwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. S. Rajpurohit Mr. D. S. Nimla

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

(2 of 4) [CMA-1836/2006 a/w connected matter]

Judgment

04/10/2021 The appeals are listed in the "Orders category", however,

with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are

being heard and disposed of finally by this common judgment.

The present appeals have been filed by the appellant-Owner

of the vehicle against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2006

passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in M.A.C.

Case Nos.96/2004 and 55/2004 respectively, whereby, the learned

Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on

record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, decided

the claim petition of the respondents-claimants and awarded a

sum of Rs.65,000/- in M.A.C. Case Nos.96/2004 & Rs.47,000/- in

M.A.C. Case Nos.55/2004 in favour of the claimants on account of

the injuries suffered by the claimants in the accident which

occurred on 15.04.2003.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the vehicle has

submitted that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 4 & 5 is

not correct as the Tribunal held that since the Driver of the

offending vehicle was holding the licence of Light Motor Vehicle

and the vehicle being driven by its driver was transport vehicle

and, therefore, he was not eligible to drive the transport vehicle.

Therefore, the direction was given for payment of the

compensation amount to the Insurance Company with a rider to

recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel

submits that the findings on Issue Nos. 4 & 5 are incorrect in the

(3 of 4) [CMA-1836/2006 a/w connected matter]

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

Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company

Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 4

& 5 do not suffer any infirmity, as admittedly the driver of the

vehicle was not holding licence to drive the transport vehicle and,

therefore, rider to pay and recover was rightly ordered by the

Tribunal. He submits that no interference in the finding recorded

by the Tribunal is warranted in the present case.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the judgment and award dated 21.03.2006.

The findings of the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 4 & 5 appear to be

incorrect in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra), wherein it was

held that if the vehicle is weighing less than 7500kg., the driver of

the said vehicle was holding the requisite licence to drive the

transport vehicle or not, is of no consequences. If a driver is

holding a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and there is

no endorsement to the effect to drive the transport vehicle, it will

not be a ground to deny the claim of the claimant to be satisfied

by the Insurance Company. Admittedly, in the present case vehicle

involved in the present case was a Jeep weighing less than

7500kg., therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble

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

liability to pay the compensation lies on the Insurance Company.

Thus,   the    finding   recorded        by     the     Tribunal     to    pay    the



                                                                             (4 of 4)                    [CMA-1836/2006
                                                                                                   a/w connected matter]

compensation by the Insurance Company and recover the same

from the owner is set-aside.

Accordingly, the appeals preferred by the appellant-owner

are allowed and the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to

pay the compensation amount to the claimants as ordered by the

Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 21.03.2006. The

solvent security furnished by the appellant-owner in the present

appeals are discharged.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 213-214-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)