Kishore Singh vs U.I.I.Co.Ltd.And Ors. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5543 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5543 Raj
Judgement Date : 28 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kishore Singh vs U.I.I.Co.Ltd.And Ors. ... on 28 January, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:5386]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       AT JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2453/2007

Kishore Singh son of Shri Gopal Singh, aged 25 years, resident
of Village Patodi, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.).
                                                             ----Appellant (Owner)
                                       Versus
1.     United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Jalore.
                                                        ----(Insurer)
2.     Manohar Singh s/o Shri Sohan Singh (Sumer Singh),
       Resident of Village Mandwala, Tehsil & District Jalore
                                         ----(Non-Applicant-Driver).
3.     Deva Ram son of Shri Achala Ram, resident of Village
       mandwala, Tehsil & District Jalore.
4.     Smt. Samla wife of Shri Devaram, resident of Village
       Mandwala, Tehsil & District Jalore.
                                                    ----Respondent (Claimants)


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. B.L. Tiwari
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Anil Kaushik (for insurance
                                   company)
                                   Mr. Manish Rajpurohit for Mr. Rakesh
                                   Arora (for respondent No.4).


               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order 28/01/2025

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 08.08.2006 passed by the

learned Judge, MACT, Jalore (Raj.) [hereinafter referred to as 'the

learned Tribunal'] in Claim Case No.35/2002 titled "Devaram v.

Manohar Singh & Ors." whereby the claim petition was partly

allowed and the appellant herein was held liable to pay the

amount of compensation.

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 daughter Shanti aged 8 years

in an accident on 23.02.2002 at 10.40 AM caused by negligence of

[2025:RJ-JD:5386] (2 of 4) [CMA-2453/2007]

the respondent No.2 herein i.e. Manohar Singh as alleged in the

claim petition.

3. It is further averred in the claim petition that on the date of

the incident, Shanti while going to a grocery shop was hit by a

jeep bearing No.RJ-19-T-937 driven by the respondent No.2

herein. Due to fatal injuries, she succumbed to death on the spot.

It was also alleged in the claim petition that Shanti at that time

was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by way of doing craft work on

the shoes and also claimed compensation under various other

heads.

4. The appellant owner and the respondent No.2 herein filed

their respective replies while denying the allegations made by the

claimants in their claim petition. They further submitted in their

reply that insurer of the jeep i.e. the respondent No.1 herein is

also liable to satisfy the award of the claim petition to which, the

respondent No.1 herein i.e. the insurance company also filed

written statement, while denying the contents of claim petition

due to want of knowledge and also took certain defence against

the owner/driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The insurance company specifically took this defence that the

driver of the offending vehicle was not having endorsement of

Public Service Vehicles ('PSV') authorization in his license.

6. The learned Tribunal framed five issues and after hearing

both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award

dated 08.08.2006 and being aggrieved thereof, the instant misc.

appeal has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned

Tribunal in the impugned award dated 08.08.2006 has held that

[2025:RJ-JD:5386] (3 of 4) [CMA-2453/2007]

the appellant was not having valid driving license to drive the jeep

for the purpose of carrying passengers as the appellant was

having the license to drive Light Motor 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

requirement of having transport license to drive the jeep was not

required. 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'.

[2025:RJ-JD:5386] (4 of 4) [CMA-2453/2007]

(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. ....."

8. Learned counsel for the respondents 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 appellant is not

required to have the passenger PSV license to drive the vehicle in

question.

9. In view of the submissions made and taking into

consideration the judgment dated 06.11.2024 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 in the impugned award dated

08.08.2006 to the extent of pay and recover is quashed and set

aside. All the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to