Rajasthan High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Sajjan Singh And Others on 21 January, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1757/2011
The National Insurance Company Ltd., Jeevan Nidhi IInd Floor,
Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sajjan Singh S/o Shri Bahadur Singh, R/o Kharekhadi, Post
Krishchanganj, Ajmer.
2. Smt. Sita W/o Late Shri Sajjan Singh, R/o Kharekhadi, Post
Krishchanganj, Ajmer.
3. Smt. Sukhi W/o Late Shri Surendra Singh, Minor Through
Natural Guardian Fat, R/o Kharekhadi, Post Krishchanganj,
Ajmer.
4. Kumari Sharda D/o Shi Sajjan Singh, Minor Through Natural
Guardian Father R, R/o Kharekhadi, Post Krishchanganj,
Ajmer.
5. Ku. Seema Alias Nirma D/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Minor Through
Natural Guardian, R/o Kharekhadi, Post Krishchanganj, Ajmer.
6. Master Dharmendra S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Minor Through
Natural Guardian Fat, R/o Kharekhadi, Post Krishchanganj,
Ajmer.
7. Shiv Raj S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Minor Through Natural
Guardian Father Respo, R/o Kharekhadi, Post Krishchanganj,
Ajmer.
8. Bahadur S/o Late Shri Shri Piru, R/o Kharekhadi, Post
Krishchanganj, Ajmer.
9. Smt. Reshmi W/o Shri Bahadur, R/o Kharekhadi, Post
Krishchanganj, Ajmer.
10. Kamal Kumar Gahlot S/o Shri Kishan Lal, R/o Dadabari, Vijay
Nagar Marg Beawar, Ajmer. Driver Of Tractor No. Rj 01-R-4901
11. Kishan Lal S/o Shri Mithu Lal, R/o Vijay Nagar Marg, New
Dadabari, Beawar. Owner Of Vehicle
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Vijay, through VC
For Respondent(s) : None for respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 21/01/2022
Judgment Pronounced on : January 25th, 2022
(2 of 4) [CMA-1757/2011]
This appeal has been filed by appellant National
Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated
16-12-2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Ajmer (hereafter `the Tribunal') in Case No.683/2009,
whereby an award of Rs.5,08,000/- has been passed in
favour of the claimants.
2. Notices were issued on 28-3-2011, however,
respondents have not been served so far.
3. Since the appeal is pending since 2011, therefore, with
the consent of learned counsel for appellant Insurance
Company, appeal has been heard on merits.
4. Facts of the case are that on filing claim petition by
claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereafter `the Act of 1988') the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.5,08,000/- with interest in favour of the
claimants and appellant Insurance Company was held liable
to pay compensation with whom the tractor in question was
insured. The claim petition was filed in relation to an accident
occurred on 16-11-2009 when tractor RJ-01-R-4901 hit the
motor cycle due to which Surendra Singh died. The tractor in
question was insured with appellant Insurance Company. The
Tribunal considering the evidence oral and documentary led
before came to conclusion in favour of claimants and awarded
compensation as above.
5. Counsel for appellant Insurance Company has raised two
arguments first, the driver of tractor was having licence to
drive light motor vehicle, which cannot be treated as valid for
tractor, second, that the vehicle was registered in the name
in whose name insurance policy was not made.
(3 of 4) [CMA-1757/2011]
6. Counsel for appellant has raised an argument that the
driver of the insured tractor was not having a valid licence to
driver the tractor as his licence authorises him to driver only
light motor vehicle, which does not have any endorsement to
drive the tractor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund
Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [AIR
2017 SC 3668] has held that "light motor vehicle" would
include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in
Sections 2(21) read with 2(15) and 2(48). A transport vehicle
and omnibus, the gross weight of either of which does not
exceed 7500 Kgs. would be light motor vehicle and also
motor car or tractor or a road roller "unladen wight" of which
does not exceed 7500 kg. In the present case the tractor was
unladen and its wight does not exceed 7500 kg, and as such
the driver, who was holding a valid licence to drive light motor
vehicle, may not be treated as invalid to drive the tractor.
Accordingly, the first argument is devoid of merit.
7. Counsel for appellant has further argued that the tractor
was registered in the name of Chhagan Lal, whereas it had
been transferred to one Kishan Lal, the insurance policy lies
in the name of Chhagan Lal, with whom there was not
contract of insurance. As far as this argument is concerned, it
is not in dispute that deceased Surendra Singh falls within
definition of "third party". As per judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in G. Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. [(1999)3 SCC 754] the insurer who issued policy would
be liable to pay compensation to "third party". It is not
dispute that the insurance policy covers the risk of "third
party". Accordingly, this argument also does not have any
substance.
8. No other argument has been raised by counsel for
appellant Insurance Company.
(4 of 4) [CMA-1757/2011]
9. Otherwise also, this court does not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned award. Nothing erroneous, perverse
or illegal can be attributed to impugned award. The impugned
award is a well considered one and requires no interference
by this court.
10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant Insurance
Company is dismissed.
11. A perusal of record reveals that on 28-3-2011 Insurance
Company was directed to deposit entire compensation
amount before the Tribunal, out of which 50% amount of
compensation was to be disbursed to claimants and
remaining 50% amount was to be kept in FDR. Amount of
compensation be disbursed to claimants.
12. Stay application, and other applications, if pending, are
also disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/35
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
