Gulab Ram And Anr vs Jagdish And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 15375 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 804/2012

1. Gulab Ram S/o Shri Mansukh Ram, by caste Bishnoi, R/o. Vishnu Bal Niketan, Sanjay Colony, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.)....Owner of the Vehicle No.RJ21TA0448.

2. Puna Ram @ Poonam Chand S/o Shri Narsingh Ram, by caste Bishnoi, R/o. Dhigsara, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Raj.)...Driver of the vehicle No.RJ21TA0448.

----Appellant Versus

1. Jagdish S/o Shri Bhagirath Ram, aged 38 years,

2. Smt. Bastu Devi W/o Shri Jagdish, aged 36 years, ict Nagaur. Both by caste Bishnoi, R/o.Godaron and Tardo Ki Dhaniyan, Kudchhi, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur.

3. National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Nagaur.

                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Prashant Panwar for
                                 Mr. Rajesh Panwar
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Jagdish Vyas



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                  Judgment

04/10/2021

The service of notice upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is

dispensed with at the risk and cost of learned counsel for the

appellants.

Although the matter is listed in the 'orders category',

however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is being heard and decided finally.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 05/01/2012 passed by learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Nagaur in M.A.C. Case No.38/2010, whereby, the

(2 of 3) [CMA-804/2012]

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.2,25,000/- in favour of the respondents/claimants on

account of the death of deceased Manish in the accident which

occurred on 14/03/2010.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that while

deciding the issue No.2, the Tribunal committed an error. He

submits that the driver of the Bolero was holding a driving licence

of driving the Light Motor Vehicle. He further submits that

although the vehicle was Bolero but the same was being used as a

transport vehicle and there was no endorsement on the driving

licence of the driver of the Bolero to use the said vehicle as a

transport vehicle, therefore, the liability has been fastened on the

driver and owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company has

been exonerated by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that

the said finding recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous in the light

of the judgment of Hon'ble 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 Tribunal adjudicated the issue No.2 on the basis

of the evidence brought on record and, therefore, there is no

infirmity in the same and the same does not require any

interference by this Court.

(3 of 3) [CMA-804/2012]

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the judgment and award dated 05/01/2020, the finding of

the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 appears to be incorrect in the light of

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

Dewangan (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was

held that if a person holds a licence to drive light motor vehicle

than whether the vehicle driven by such person is commercial,

transport or any other vehicle, it will not be construed as a breach

exonerating insurance company, if the weight of vehicle is less

than 7,500 kgs. Admittedly, in the present case vehicle was a

Bolero weighing less than 7500kg., and the driver of Bolero was

competent and eligible to drive the same. Thus, the finding

recorded by the Tribunal that since the same was a transport

vehicle, the Insurance Company is exonerated is incorrect and in

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

Mukund Dewangan (supra), the liability to pay the compensation

is on the Insurance Company. Thus, the finding recorded by the

Tribunal on Issue No.2 is set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellants-owner

and driver of the vehicle is allowed and the respondent No.3-

Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount

to the claimants as ordered by the Tribunal vide its judgment and

award dated 05/01/2012.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

63-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)