Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jana Devi And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:10074) on 19 February, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:10074]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1819/2016

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Hanumangar through Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. TP Hub Pal Road, Jodhpur
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1. Jana Devi w/o Shyopat Ram, aged 35 years, resident of Chak
Haripura, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
2. Shyopat S/o Chetan Ram, aged 37 years, resident of Chak
Haripura, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
3. Gurmeet Singh @ Gutti s/o Darshan Singh, resident of Pakka
Saharana Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (Driver of Pickup No.
RJ31-GA-3163)
4. Smt. Sheela Devi W/o late Darshan Singh
4/1 Gurmeet Singh @ Gutti @ s/o Darshan Singh, resident of
Pakka Saharana Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
4/2 Jagmeet Singh S/o Darshan Singh, resident of Pakka
Saharana Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (owner of Pickup
no.RJ-31-GA-3163)
                                                                     ----Respondent
                                Connected With
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2276/2016
1. Gurmeet Singh @ Gutti s/o Darshan Singh, resident of Pakka
Saharana Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (Driver of Pickup No.
RJ31-GA-3163)
2. lRs of Smt. Sheela Devi W/o late Darshan Singh
2/1 Gurmeet Singh @ Gutti @ s/o Darshan Singh, resident of
Pakka Saharana Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
2/2 Jagmeet Singh S/o Darshan Singh, resident of Pakka
Saharana Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (owner of Pickup
no.RJ-31-GA-3163)
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1. Jana Devi w/o Shyopat Ram, aged 33 years, resident of Chak
Haripura, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
2. Shyopat S/o Chetan Ram, aged 35 years, resident of Chak
Haripura, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Hanumangar through Branch
Manager,      United    India      Insurance         Co.     Ltd.,   Hunumangarh

                       (Downloaded on 21/02/2025 at 11:06:57 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:10074]                   (2 of 5)                       [CMA-1819/2016]


Junction, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (Insurer- Pickup No.
R-31-GA-3163)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. VK Bhadu for United India
                                Insurance Company
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mudit Vaishnav for Mr. Rajesh
                                Panwar, Sr. Advocate



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

19/02/2025

1. The S.B.CMA No. 1819/2016 has been preferred by the

United India Insurance Company Ltd. and S.B.CMA No.2276/2016

has been preferred by the Owner and Driver of Pickup under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as 'the

Act') assailing the judgment and award dated 24.05.2016 passed

by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumaganrh

(hereinafter as 'the learned Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 108/2014

whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed

by the claimants under Section 166 of the Act and awarded

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of claimants along with

interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition,

while fastening the liability upon owner and driver; however

insurance company was given a direction to pay at the first

instance and then recover from the owner and driver.

2. Since both appeals arise out of the common judgment and

award dated 24.05.2016 (hereinafter as 'impugned award')

therefore, the same are being decided vide this judgment. For the

sake of convenience appellant in SBCMA No.1819/2016 will be

[2025:RJ-JD:10074] (3 of 5) [CMA-1819/2016]

referred as Insurance Company and the appellants in SBCMA

No.2276/2016 will be referred as Owner and Driver.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the instant appeals

are that on 02.06.2014, at around 10:30 AM, when the deceased

Dhapan (aged 12 years) was crossing the road, suddenly a pickup

no.RJ-31-GA-3163 came at a very high speed and hit Dhapan and

resultantly she died. The FIR No. 145/14 was registered at Police

Station Sadar, Hanumangarh and charge-sheet was also filed

against the driver.

4. The claimants preferred claim petition before the learned

tribunal. Owner and Driver jointly filed a reply, while Respondent

No. 3 Insurance Company submitted a separate reply, denying the

allegations. The insurance company raised a preliminary objection,

stating that at the time of the accident, the driver did not possess

a valid and effective driving license to drive pickup i.e., a transport

vehicle.

5. Based on the material available on record, the learned

Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- while fastening the liability upon owner and driver

with a direction to the insurance company to pay at the first

instance and then recover from the owner and driver. Aggrieved

by the same the instant appeals have been preferred by the

respective parties.

6. Learned counsel for the owner and driver submits that the

learned Tribunal in the impugned award dated 24.05.2016

exonerated the insurance company and held the driver and owner

liable solely on the ground that the driver of the pickup was

having the license to drive Light Motor Vehicles only whereas the

[2025:RJ-JD:10074] (4 of 5) [CMA-1819/2016]

pickup falls into the category of transport vehicles. He further

submits 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 driver of

the pickup was not required to have transport vehicle license as he

already had driving license to drive light motor vehicle. 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

[2025:RJ-JD:10074] (5 of 5) [CMA-1819/2016]

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. ....."

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently

objects the same. He also submits that the learned tribunal has

erred in giving the direction of pay and recover to the insurance

company even after exonerating the insurance company.

8. In view of the submissions made and taking into

consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) wherein the decision in the

case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) was upheld, the direction given

to the respondent- Insurance Company in the impugned award

dated 24.05.2016 to the extent of pay and recover is quashed and

set aside. All the non-applicants are held jointly and severally

liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal