Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Tajmal And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:8978) on 13 February, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:8978]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2476/2017
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional
Manager, 673-B, Third Floor, Bhansali Tower, Residency Road,
Jodhpur. .........insurer
----Appellant
Versus
1. Tajmal Son Of Shoukin
2. Smt. Taslim Alias Bebibanu, Wife Of Tajmal, Both By
Caste Kaji, Residents Of Village Duliabas, Sujangarh,
District Churu. .......... Claimants
3. Dhanraj, Son Of Shri Dhanna Ram, By Caste Bavri,
Resident Of Bavrion Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 35, Sujangarh,
District Churu. ...........driver
4. Smt. Raisa Bano, Wife Of Bhanwarukhan, By Caste
Kayamkhani, Resident Of Holidhora, Sujangarh, District
Churu. ................registered Owner
5. Abdul Majid, Son Of Bhanwarukhan, By Caste
Kayamkhani, Resident Of Holidhora, Sujangarh, District
Churu. ................registered Owner
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukul Singhvi.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
13/02/2025
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that service of
notice of respondent No. 3 may be dispensed with.
2. At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellant,
service of notice of respondent No.3 is dispensed with.
3. Despite service of notice on the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5,
no one is present.
[2025:RJ-JD:8978] (2 of 5) [CMA-2476/2017]
4. The matter comes upon an application filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the
appeal.
5. For the reasons indicated in the application, the same is
allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
6. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed against the judgment
and award dated 17.04.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sujangarh, District Churu in Civil Misc. Claim Case
No.32/2013, whereby, the Tribunal has held the appellant as well
as respondent Nos.3 to 5 liable to pay the compensation in the
tune of Rs.5,30,000/- jointly and severally.
7. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the instant appeal
are that on 15.02.2013, at around 12:30 PM, the deceased Abdul
Malik (aged 14 years) was standing on the roadside in front of
Hiralal's shop. At that time, a Mahindra tractor (registration
number RJ 10 RA 6722) came from the Chungi Naka side at a very
high speed, swerving uncontrollably. The tractor was being driven
negligently and recklessly by respondent No.3 - Dhanraj alias
Dhannaram, who lost control and hit Abdul Malik, knocking him to
the ground. The front wheel of the tractor ran over him, leading to
his immediate death. Eyewitness Liaqat Qazi and others stopped
the tractor, but the driver, Dhanraj Bawari, fled the scene. The
deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.
The accident was reported to the police on the same day i.e.
15.02.2013 at 2:00 PM by Abdul Rashid at the Government
Hospital, Sujangarh. Based on this report, FIR No. 68/13 was
registered at Police Station Sujangarh under Sections 279 and
304A of the IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:8978] (3 of 5) [CMA-2476/2017]
8. A claim petition was filed before the learned MACT, Churu
being Civil Misc. Claim Case No.32/2013. In the petition, the
petitioner has claimed that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was 14 years old, engaged in manual labor, and earning
₹5,000 per month. Compensation of ₹33,20,000 has been sought
from appellant and respondents No.3, 4 & 5 for the death of Abdul
Malik in the accident.
9. Based on the submissions made by the parties, the learned
Tribunal has framed as many as four issues and awarded a sum of
Rs.5,30,000/- and held the appellant - Insurance Company and
respondent Nos.3 to 5 jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present
appeal has been filed challenging the impugned award solely on
the ground that the driver was not having a valid license to ply the
Tractor and he was having a license to drive the light motor
vehicle. He submits that the learned Tribunal has also awarded the
compensation on higher side.
11. This Court finds that the issue of having a valid license for
driving the Tractor, which has caused the accident and the fact
that the Driver was not having the valid license to drive the
Tractor. Thus, he was having a license to drive the Light Motor
Vehicle, has already been adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court
iHon'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
[2025:RJ-JD:8978] (4 of 5) [CMA-2476/2017]
transport license to drive the Tractor 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
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. ....."
12. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rambha Devi
(supra) has held that the person holding a license for light motor
[2025:RJ-JD:8978] (5 of 5) [CMA-2476/2017]
vehicle is not required to have additional authorization to drive a
transport vehicle with gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500
kg, therefore, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant in this regard is not sustainable.
13. Thus, in view of the same, the instant appeal being devoid of
merit is dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
154-pradeep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
