Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kailash And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:13956) on 12 March, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:13956]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1621/2017
United India Insurance Company Limited Through Deputy
Manager, T.p. Hub, 2Nd Floor, 74 - A, Bhati N Plaza, Main Pal
Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kailash S/o Shri Kheta Ram,
2. Smt. Chuka Devi W/o Kailash, Both Are By Caste
Meghwal, R/o Jasuriya, Tehsil Makarana, District Nagour.
3. Nimbu Ram S/o Sultan, By Caste Banjara, R/o Ganesh
Dungari, Borawar, District Nagaur. Driver
4. Sultan S/o Mangla Ram, By Caste Banjara, R/o Ganesh
Dungari, Borawar, District Nagaur. Owner
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. TRS Sodha
For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
12/03/2025
1. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as 'the Act') has been preferred by
the appellant-insurance company challenging the judgment and
order dated 22.02.2017 (hereinafter as 'impugned award') passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar, Nagaur
(hereinafter as 'tribunal') in MAC No. 185/2013 whereby the
learned tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the
claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,15,000/-
along with interest @8% while holding the appellant-insurance
company along with respondent Nos.3 and 4 jointly and severally
[2025:RJ-JD:13956] (2 of 4) [CMA-1621/2017]
liable to pay the awarded compensation however, insurance
company was given liberty to recover the same from the
respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Kaluram (Aged 3
years) was playing outside his home, when Pick-up bearing
registration no.RJ14 2G 3758 (hereinafter as 'Offending Vehicle'),
being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit Kaluram. As a
result of the accident Kaluram sustained grievous injuries and
ultimately met his demise during the course of treatment.
Subsequently, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act was
filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death
of Kaluram (hereinafter as 'deceased'). The appellant-insurance
company and respondent Nos.3 and 4 (driver and owner) filed
their seperate reply to the claim petition while denying the
averments made therein. On basis of pleadings of the parties the
learned tribunal framed five issues. After hearing both the
parties, the learned tribunal vide the impugned award partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune
of Rs.3,15,000/- along with interest @8% while holding the
appellant-insurance company along with respondent Nos.3 and 4
jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation with
liberty to the appellant-insurance company to recover the same
from respondent Nos.3 and 4. Aggrieved by the same instant
misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurance
company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has
restricted his submissions to challenge the finding of the learned
tribunal whereby the liability has been fastened upon the
[2025:RJ-JD:13956] (3 of 4) [CMA-1621/2017]
appellant-insurance company jointly and severally along with the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 with liberty to the appellant-insurance
company to recover the same from the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
He submits that the accident occurred when the respondent no.3-
driver was driving the offending vehicle i.e., Light Transport
Vehicle, however, the respondent no.3-driver did not have valid
and effective driving license to drive 'light transport vehicle' at the
time of the accident, and the same was in violation of the policy
conditions hence, the learned tribunal has erred in fastening the
liability on the appellant-insurance company. He also submits that
no appeal has been filed by owner/driver of the offending vehicle.
4. Heard and perused the material available on record.
5. This court finds that the respondent no.3-driver had the
driving license to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle', which is an admitted
fact. And in the present case the offending vehicle was a 'light
transport vehicle' of a gross vehicle weight under 7500 Kg as
reflected in the Insurance Policy (Ex.A1). Thus, the respondent
no.3-driver was not required to have a separate authorization for
'Transport Vehicle' class as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3183 has held that a driver holding a driving
license for 'Light Motor Vehicle' class does not require additional
authorization specifically to operate the 'Transport Vehicle' with
gross vehicle weight under 7500 Kg. The relevant paragraphs of
the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:
"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 vehicle
weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport
[2025:RJ-JD:13956] (4 of 4) [CMA-1621/2017]
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."
6. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant-insurance company that the respondent no.3-driver did
not have the valid and effective driving license at the time of the
accident does not have any force.
7. In view of the above, the instant misc. appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
68-/devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
