Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Babulal And Anr vs Smt.Lugo And Anr (2025:Rj-Jd:40068) on 9 September, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:40068]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 656/2004

     1. Babulal s/o Kheemraj jain age 32 years, r/o Mokhab Tehsil
        Shiv District Barmer
     2. Hanwant Kumar s/o Prem Chand b/c Acharya, age 29
        years, r/o Acharyo ka Bas, Barmer
                                                   ----Appellants-non-petitioners
                                         Versus
     1. Smt. Lugo w/o Gena Ram b/c Mali, r/o Otwala Tehsil
        Sayala, District Jalore
                                            ----Respondent-claimant
     2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Barmer and
        Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur.
                                                   ----Respondent-non-petitioner


For Appellant(s)               :     Mr. Mudit Vaishnav
For Respondent(s)              :     None present


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

09/09/2025

1. Despite service, nobody is present on behalf of the

respondents and the present appeal is pending consideration since

the year 2004, therefore, the same is being heard and decided

finally today itself.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

3. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment and

Award dated 09.05.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as "the learned

Tribunal"), whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondent-

claimant has been allowed. The present appeal has been filed on

behalf of the owner and driver of the offending Jeep Trola (Mini

Trola) which met with an accident on 22.09.2000 near old bus

stand in village Sayla. In the accident, two persons Smt. Aji Devi

and Smt. Lungo sustained injuries and they were rushed to the

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:06:26 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40068] (2 of 5) [CMA-656/2004]

hospital where they were given treatment. Both the injured

persons filed claim petitions before the learned Tribunal, wherein,

the learned Tribunal, after adjudicating the issue has allowed the

claim petitions vide order dated 09.05.2003, fastening the liability

of paying compensation upon the present appellants while

exonerating the Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that

as per the admitted position in the present case, the driver of the

vehicle Hanwant Kumar was holding a valid driving licence for

driving light motor vehicle. The licence is placed on record as

Ex.15. He further submits that the vehicle involved in the present

case was mini truck and as per the registration certificate of the

vehicle, the same was Jeep Trola (Mini Trola) and its weight was

less than 7500 kgs. He further submits that the findings record by

the learned Tribunal on issue No.3 is contrary to the judgment of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan

Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in

2017(14) SCC 663. On the strength of the judgment of Mukund

Dewangan, learned counsel submits that since the driver of the

vehicle was holding the licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' and

the motor vehicle which was being driven was less than 7500 kgs,

therefore, the same was covered by the Insurance Policy and the

Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation in the

present case. He, therefore, prays that the liability to pay the

compensation upon the present appellants may be quashed and

set aside and the respondent - Insurance Company may be

directed to pay the compensation to the claimants.

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:06:26 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40068] (3 of 5) [CMA-656/2004]

5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant record of the case.

6. The admitted fact in the present case shows that in the

accident which occurred on 22.09.2000, Smt. Aji Devi and Smt.

Lungo sustained injuries and they were extended the treatments.

On the claim petitions filed by the injured persons, the learned

Tribunal has allowed their claim petitions fastening the liability to

pay the compensation upon the appellants vide Judgment and

Award dated 09.05.2003. The appellants are the driver and owner

of the offending vehicle. As per Ex.15, the driver of the vehicle

Hanwant Kumar was holding a driving licence to drive light motor

vehicle. As per Ex.12, the registration certificate, the weight of the

vehicle was less than 7500 kgs and, therefore, the driver of the

vehicle was eligible to drive the motor vehicle even used for the

transport purposes since it was less than 7500 kgs. Therefore, as

per the condition in the Insurance Policy, the driver of the vehicle

was entitled to drive the vehicle involved in the present accident

even in the category of transport vehicle as the same was

weighing less than 7500 kgs and thus, the Insurance Policy

covered the subject vehicle and, therefore, they were under an

obligation to compensate the claimants in the present accident.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan

has held as under:-

"46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:06:26 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40068] (4 of 5) [CMA-656/2004]

including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2) (d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in Section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and Rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

(i)Light motor vehicle' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg.

or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued Under Section 10(2)

(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.

(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No. 54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting Clauses

(e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in Section 10(2)(e) medium passenger motor vehicle in Section 10(2)(f) heavy goods vehicle in Section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in Section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:06:26 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40068] (5 of 5) [CMA-656/2004]

substituted in Section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not transport vehicle, from the purview of Section 10(2)(d) and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."

8. Thus, in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court,

the learned Tribunal was not right in fastening the liability of

paying compensation upon the driver and owner of the vehicle

and, therefore, the finding on issue No.3 is quashed and set aside

and it is held that the respondent - Insurance Company shall pay

the compensation to the claimants in the present case.

9. In view of the discussions made above, the present civil

misc. appeal merits acceptance, and the same is allowed. The

liability to pay the compensation to the respondent No.1 -

claimant in the present case is fastened on the respondent -

Insurance Company, and the appellants are exonerated from

paying the compensation in the present case.