Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nimba Ram And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:13429) on 10 March, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:13429]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1857/2014
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Deputy Manager
Incharge, 637/B, Bhansali Towers, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant(Insurer)
Versus
1. Nimba Ram son of Shri Poona Ram
2. Skmt. Tipudi, wife of shri Nimba Ram
Both residents of village Kharnal, Tehsil and District
Nagaur.
.....Claimants
3. Salim, son of Usman Khan, resident of village Deh, Tehsil
Jayal, District Nagaur
.... Driver
4. Narayan Ram, son of Shri Joga Ram, resident of village
kudi, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
....Owner-Manager
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukul Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Choudhary for
Mr. IR Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
10/03/2025
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 24.09.2014 (hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur (hereinafter as
‘tribunal’) in MAC No. 111/2011 whereby the learned tribunal has
partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,23,000/- along with
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13429] (2 of 5) [CMA-1857/2014]
interest @7.5% while holding the appellant-insurance company
along with respondent Nos.3 and 4 jointly and severally liable to
pay the awarded compensation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 04.09.2011
Rajuram was going from his home to Gaushala (from the direction
of Nagaur to Jodhpur) on his bike, when the vehicle bearing
registration no. RJ 19 TA 2110 (hereinafter as ‘the offending
vehicle’), being driven in a negligent manner by the respondent
no.3-driver, came from the side of Nagaur and dashed into the
bike of Rajuram from behind. As a result of the accident Rajuram
sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries during the
course of treatment in the hospital. Subsequently, a claim petition
was filed by the claimants (the respondent No.1 and 2 herein)
before the learned tribunal seeking compensation on account of
death of Rajuram (hereinafter as ‘the deceased’). The respondent
Nos.3 and 4 filed a joint reply to the claim petition denying the
averments made therein. On the other hand, the appellant-
insurance company also filed its reply to the claim petition and
denied the averments made therein while also denying the liability
on the ground breach of policy as the respondent no.3-driver did
not have valid and effective driving license at the time of the
accident.
2.1. On basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial
court framed four issues.
2.2. The claimants (the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) examined
two witnesses and produced some documentary evidence (Ex.1 to
Ex.16).
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13429] (3 of 5) [CMA-1857/2014]
2.3. The appellant-insurance company examined two witnesses
(NAW1 and NAW2) and produced some documentary evidence
(Ex.A1 to Ex.A4).
2.4. 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.7,23,000/- along with interest
@7.5% while holding the appellant-insurance company along with
respondent Nos.3 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the
awarded compensation. 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
appellant-insurance company jointly and severally along with 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 ‘passenger
carrying vehicle’ or ‘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.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4
submits that the respondent no.3-driver was having valid and
effective driving license to drive ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ therefore, he
was not required to have driving license to drive ‘transport
vehicle’.
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13429] (4 of 5) [CMA-1857/2014]
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. 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. 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
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(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13429] (5 of 5) [CMA-1857/2014]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.”
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, the instant misc. appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
9. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
110-/Ajay/-
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)