Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amarjeet Kaur And Ors vs Swarn Singh And Ors. ... on 24 July, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:30108]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2471/2017
1. Amarjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh
2. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Basant Singh
3. Harjinder Kaur W/o Sh. Gurusevak Singh @ Sevak Singh
4. Amanjot Minor D/o Sh. Gurusevak Sinkgh @ Sevak Singh
through natrual guardian, Harjinder Kaur
5. Avjot Minor D/o Sh. Gurusevak Singh @ Sevak Singh,
through natrual guardian, Harjinder Kaur
All residents of Hansaliya, Tehsil Pilibanga, District
Hanumangarh.
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Swarn Singh S/o Sh. Avatar Singh, R/o 301 M.O.D.
Tehsil, Suratgarh District Sriganganagar.
Driver- Auto No. RJ-31-PA-1138
2. Anokh Singh S/o Sh. Karnail Singh, R/o Kharlia, Tehsil
Pilibanga Service Through Self and Counsel Rakesh Punia,
Court Premises, Pilibanga.
Owner- Auto No. RJ-31-PA-1138
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Zonal
Office At Hanumangarh.
Insurer- Auto No. RJ-31-PA-1138
----Respondents/Non-claimants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aakash Kukkar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukul Singhvi, R-3.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order 24/07/2024
1. The appellants/claimants have preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act challenging the judgment and award dated 23.05.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh in MAC Case (Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:44:26 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:30108] (2 of 5) [CMA-2471/2017] No.104/2012, whereby while awarding compensation in favour of claimants, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the non-claimant No.3 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. from its liability to pay the compensation.
2. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of this misc. appeal are that the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.61,90,000/- on account of death of their sole breadwinner, who lost his life in the accident on 05.05.2012.In the claim petition, it was inter alia alleged that on 05.05.2012 while the deceased Gurusevak Singh @ Sevak Singh was going on his motorcycle, the driver of auto (offending vehicle) bearing registration number RJ-31-PA-1138 while plying the vehicle rashly and negligently, that too, wrong side hit the motorcycle, as a result of which deceased sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed. An FIR No.200/2012 of the accident was lodged at Police Station Pilibanga, wherein after investigation charge sheet was filed against the driver/non-claimant No.1 Swarn Singh before the competent court. The offending vehicle was in the ownership of the non-claimant No.2 and was insured with non- claimant No.3.
3. On receipt of summons of the claim petition, non-claimants No.1 and 2 filed reply while denying the averments made in the claim petition and pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company, reply was filed while alleging therein that the deceased himself was not having the licence to ply the motorcycle. An objection with regard to driver of the offending vehicle not having (Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:44:26 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:30108] (3 of 5) [CMA-2471/2017] valid and effective licence was also taken and thus it was prayed that the claim petition be rejected.
4. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Triubnal framed five issues. In support of their claim, the claimants examined AW.1 Sukhdev Singh and 16 documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimant No.3, NAW.1 Naresh Arora was examined and in documentary evidence, two documents were exhibited.
5. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced and material placed before it vide its judgment and award dated 23.05.2017 proceeded to award compensation in favour of appellants/claimants to tune of Rs.14,40,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. The learned Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the non-claimants No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle while exonerating the non-claimant No.3 insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation.
6. In the instant appeal, the appellants have not questioned the quantum of the compensation awarded in their favour and the only grievance raised in the instant misc. appeal is that the non- claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company has wrongly been exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants while relying upon the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. : Civil Appeal No.5826/2011 decided on 03.07.2017 submits that the person having licence to ply LMV can ply a light transport vehicle, which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light (Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:44:26 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:30108] (4 of 5) [CMA-2471/2017] 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. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the weight of an auto (light transort vehicle) does not exceed 7500 KG and, therefore, in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukun Dewangan (supra), exoneration of non- claimant No.3 insurance company from its liability is not justified.
8. E-converso, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 Insurance Company reiterated the stand, which was taken before the learned Tribunal and stated that since the driver of the offending vehicle was having LMV licence, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation.
9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties and in view of judgment passed in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), this Court is of the opinion that exoneration of the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation is not sustainable. This Court finds that the driver of the offending vehicle was having the licence to ply LMV, and at the time of accident he was plying an auto weighing less than 7500 KG, therefore, the insurance company could not have been exonerated from its liability to satisfy the award, inasmuch as the said basis, on which the insurance company has been exonerated, is no more res-inetra in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in (Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:44:26 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:30108] (5 of 5) [CMA-2471/2017] the case of Mukund Dewangan (surpa), wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"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"
11. Thus, in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Diwangan (supra), the exoneration of the non-claimant No.3 insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants is not sustainable.
12. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants is allowed. The judgment and award impugned dated 23.05.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh, to the extent exonerating the non-claimant No.3 from its liability to pay the compensation, is set aside. The respondent No.3/non-claimant No.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. is held liable to pay the compensation awarded in favour of claimants. The respondent No.3 shall pay the compensation to the claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. No costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 90-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:44:26 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)