Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Malaram And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:23446) on 9 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:23446]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 878/2001

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch-Udaipur.
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                        Versus
1. Malaram son of Sakaramji, resident of Charlai Khurd, Tehsil-
Pachpadara, District-Barmer.
2. Salim Khan son of Rajaq Khan, resident of Maanpura
Bhaakhari (Sojat City), District-Pali.
3. Aslum Khan son of Yusuf Khan, resident of Kishanpole Gate,
Faraasu Police Station Marg, Udaipur.


                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :     Mr. UCS Singhvi
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Shashank Sharma
                                    Ms. Vrinda Bharadwaj



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

09/05/2025

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company,

being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.06.2001,

passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Balotra,

Rajasthan, in M.A.C. Case No. 33/1999 (Malaram v. Salim

Khan & Ors.), wherein the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum

of Rs. 43,000/- in favour of the claimant along with 9% interest

from the date of filing of the application (i.e., 17.05.1999).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the above-mentioned

claim application was filed on 17.05.1999 by the

claimant-Malaram, stating therein that on 2nd March, 1999 at

[2025:RJ-JD:23446] (2 of 6) [CMA-878/2001]

around 4 p.m., the claimant, along with one Bhoma Ram and Sona

Ram, were walking from the temple situated in their village

Charlai Khurd, on the road, and suddenly a car bearing

No. RJ-27-T-0074 came on the road from the direction of Jodhpur

and was being driven rashly and negligently by Salim Khan, the

driver. It was stated that the car belonged to Aslam Khan. It was

further averred that the car dashed into him & due to the

accident, his left leg got injured and, in relation to the same, a

criminal case under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC was lodged at

Police Station, Kalyanpur, having F.I.R. No.6/99. It was stated that

due to the fracture, the claimant-Malaram remained admitted at

Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, from 2 nd March 1999 till

9th March, 1999 and he had to stay in the hospital and his leg was

also plastered. The claimant stated that due to the injury, he

remained confined to the bed for a long period and could not

undertake his agricultural work for almost five to six months. The

claimant thus claimed a sum of Rs.1,11,200/- as compensation.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company filed a reply to the

above-mentioned claim application and raised the ground that the

Insurance Company was given no information about the incident

as also a ground was raised that it was duty of the owner to

ensure that at the time the vehicle was being driven in his

ownership, the driver had a valid permit to drive the vehicle.

A specific ground was taken that the driver of the offending

vehicle did not have a valid permit, as the licence which was

possessed by the driver was for light motor vehicle, whereas the

vehicle in question was a transport vehicle, as it was an

[2025:RJ-JD:23446] (3 of 6) [CMA-878/2001]

Ambassador car that was being driven as a taxi. A formal reply

was filed on behalf of the owner and the driver of the vehicle.

4. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal

framed five issues for its adjudication, wherein issue no.3 was

with regard to whether the driver of the vehicle had a valid permit

or not. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined himself

as AW-1 and also got Bhoma Ram examined as AW-2. The

claimant also exhibited 16 documents. In order to prove their

defence, the Insurance Company/appellant examined Shri Rajesh

Kumar Goyal, Senior Assistant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., as

NAW-1.

5. Learned Tribunal by way of its judgment and award dated

01.06.2001, decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and

passed an award granting compensation to the tune of

Rs.43,000/- along with interest @9% from the date of filing of the

claim petition in favour of the claimant. Being aggrieved by the

same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company.

6. Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the appellant has

not raised any ground as far as the quantum of the award is

considered, and the only ground raised in the present appeal, as

also argued by the learned counsel is to the effect that the driver

was not holding the valid licence to drive the vehicle. It has been

argued by the learned counsel that the driver, Salim Khan was

having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and motorcycle,

whereas the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle, and

therefore, there was a violation of the condition of the policy.

Thus, the decision on issue no.3 given by the learned Tribunal is

[2025:RJ-JD:23446] (4 of 6) [CMA-878/2001]

expressly illegal and contrary to law as also the provisions of the

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant

submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the applicable

law while deciding the issue no.3 in favour of the claimant,

inasmuch as the licence (Exh.9) was produced by the claimant,

wherein it is clear that the driver was holding a valid licence

during the period in question to drive a light motor vehicle and

motorcycle with gear. It has further been asserted that the vehicle

in question was an Ambassador car taxi and the registration

certificate of the same i.e., Exh.7 makes it clear that it is a light

motor vehicle. Thus, there is no illegality in the award passed by

the learned Tribunal.

8. Having considered the arguments for both the parties and

having perused the record of the case, this Court is of the firm

opinion that the issue in hand is no longer res integra inasmuch

as, as far as the issue regarding possession of a holder of LMV

licence being entitled to drive a transport vehicle upto gross

weight of 7,500 kg is concerned, the same issue was considered in

depth by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (Mukund

Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) reported in AIR

2017 Supreme Court 3668. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the

judgment, while dealing with the provisions of the amendment

introduced in the Motor Vehicle Act in the year 1994 as also the

earlier provisions, came to a specific conclusion that even if the

vehicle is utilised for transport purposes, if the gross weight of the

vehicle is less than 7,500 kg, then the holder of LMV licence can

validly drive the vehicle and a claim cannot be rejected on the

[2025:RJ-JD:23446] (5 of 6) [CMA-878/2001]

ground of the driver not having the licence to drive the transport

vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court had considered the provisions of

transport vehicle as defined under Sections 2(47), 2(21) & 10 of

the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

9. Questioning the validity of the abovementioned judgment on

the ground that important provisions of MV Act and MV Rules were

not considered, two-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the case of "M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Rambha Devi & Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 816" vide its order dated

03.05.2018, referred the matter for consideration before a larger

Bench. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

thereafter, vide its judgment dated 06.11.2024, in the case of

"M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha

Devi and Ors." reported in (2025) 3 SCC 95 upheld the judgment

passed in the case of "Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd.", but for the reasons as explained in the

judgment passed by the Constitution Bench and observed that in

absence of any obtrusive omission, the decison of Mukund

Dewangan is not per incuriam even if certain provisions of MV Act

and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.

9.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the entire

provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules, came to a definite

conclusion that a driver holding a licence for LMV class under

Section 10(2)(d), for the vehicle with the gross vehicle weight

under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a transport vehicle

without needing any additional authorisation under

Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the transport vehicle

class. It was further observed that, for licensing purpose, LMV and

[2025:RJ-JD:23446] (6 of 6) [CMA-878/2001]

transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. The relevant

part of the conclusion is reproduced 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 opeate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needinig additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicles" 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.

10. Thus, taking guidance from the abovementioned judgment ,

the controversy in hand has been addressed in view of the

authoritative announcement of the Constitution Bench of the

Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the ground raised by the learned

counsel for the appellant is having no substance, and the appeal

deserves to be dismissed.

11. Thus, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 878/2001 in question is

dismissed, while upholding the award dated 01.06.2001. No orders

as to cost.

12. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J 13-Love/-