Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Universal Somyo General Ins. Co. Ltd vs Ruparam And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:8763) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:8763]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2303/2015
Universal Somyo General Insurance Company Limited,
Registered office: Unit 401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127,
Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri-East, Mumbai-4000509.
----Appellant/Non-claimant
Versus
1. Ruparam, son of Sujanaram, age 30 years.
2. Smt. Deli, wife of Ruparam.
All by caste Meghwal, residents of Meghwalo ki Dhani,
Ratanpura, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.
Claimants
3. Amritlal, son of Jawararam, by caste Bhil, resident of Dewara,
Tehsil Sachor, District Jalore.
4. Dhanraj, son of Jeevraj, by caste Khatti, resident of Dewara,
Tehsil Sachor, District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vipul Solanki
Mr. Aditya Singhi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar for R.3 & R.4
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
12/02/2025
1. This civil misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of
1988'] challenging the Award dated 14.08.2015 passed by the
learned Judge, MACT, Barmer (Raj.) [hereinafter referred to as
'the learned Tribunal'] in Claim Case No.47/2015 titled "Rupa Ram
& Anr. Vs. Amrit Lal & Ors." whereby the claim petition was partly
allowed and the appellant herein was held liable to pay the
amount of compensation.
[2025:RJ-JD:8763] (2 of 4) [CMA-2303/2015]
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the
respondents claimants filed a claim petition before the learned
Tribunal on account of death of their son Pradeep Kumar, who was
aged about 06 years on the date of accident i.e. 19.01.2013. The
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of
Jeep bearing No.RJ-24-T-0860. The claim petition filed by the
claimants was contested by the non-claimants. The learned trial
Court vide order dated 14.08.2025 partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum and held appellant
- Insurance Company along with the respondent-Owner jointly
severally liable to pay the compensation aggrieved by the same,
the instant civil misc appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Tribunal in the impugned award dated 14.08.2015 has been
challenged by way of filing this appeal on the sole ground that the
driver of the vehicle was having the license to drive Light Motor
Vehicles at the time of occurrence of the accident though he was
driving the goods transport vehicle. He further submits that the
issue involved in the present appeal has already been adjudicated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "M/s Bajaj Alliance
General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors."
Civil Appeal No.841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024 and hence, he
is not in a position to refute the same.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-owner affirms that in
light of the judgment dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) the
[2025:RJ-JD:8763] (3 of 4) [CMA-2303/2015]
respondent-driver was not required to have the goods transport
vehicles license to drive the vehicle in question.
5. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of "M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha
Devi & Ors." Civil Appeal No.841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024
has upheld the decision in the case of "Mukund Dewangan vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd." 2017 14 SCC 663 and thus, the
requirement of having transport license to drive the pickup which
is a goods transport vehicle was not required as the respondent-
driver was having the driving licence of light motor vehicle
category. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced
hereunder:-
".... 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are
as under:-
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a
gross Page 125 of 126 vehicle weight under 7,500 kg,
is permitted to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without
needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)
(e) of the MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle'
class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport
Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap
exists between the two. The special eligibility
requirements will however continue to apply for, inter
alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying
hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which
emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to
drive a 'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the
definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV
Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the
MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving 'transport
vehicles' would apply only to those intending to
operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding
7,500 kg i.e. 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium
[2025:RJ-JD:8763] (4 of 4) [CMA-2303/2015]
passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy
passenger vehicle'.
(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but
for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the
absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per
incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV
Rules were not considered in the said judgment. ....."
6. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rambha Devi
(supra) has held that the person holding a license for light motor
vehicle is not required to have additional authorization to drive a
transport vehicle with gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500
kg, therefore, in view of the same, the instant appeal being devoid
of merit is dismissed.
7. Record be send forthwith.
7. All pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
120-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
