Dismissed

N I C v. Saroj Kanwar

Rajasthan HC15 May 2018CMA/754/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenging an award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Mukund Dewangan, the court held that a driver possessing a valid licence for a light motor vehicle is competent to drive a light commercial vehicle, rendering the accident compensation claim valid.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; cross-objections rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.

N I C Vs Saroj Kanwar — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 754/2005.

¶4

National Insurance Company Limited, through its Jaipur Regional Office, situated at 10 – Narain Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj.)-302004

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Saroj Kanwar, w/o Late Chiman Singh, aged 35 years;

¶8

Rinu, d/o Late Chiman Singh, aged 10 years (minor), through natural guardian and mother Smt. Saroj Kanwar;

¶9

Bhagwan Singh, s/o Late Chiman Singh, aged 7 years (minor), through natural guardian and mother Smt. Saroj Kanwar;

¶10

All by caste Rajput, R/o Kishanpura, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶11

Vijay Kumar Sharma, s/o Moti Lal Sharma, aged 40 years, by caste Brahmin, r/o Gajsinghpura, opposite Heerapura Power House, Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

With

¶14

2. S.B. Civil Cross Objection No. 85/2015.

¶15

¶16

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 754/2005.

¶17

National Insurance Company Limited, through its Jaipur Regional Office, situated at LIC Building, Ambedkar Bhawan, near High Court, Jaipur

¶18

----Appellant

¶19

Versus

¶20

Smt. Saroj Kanwar, w/o Late Chiman Singh, aged 45 years;

¶21

Rinu, d/o Late Chiman Singh, aged 20 years

¶22

Bhagwan Singh, s/o Late Chiman Singh, aged

¶23

¶24

17 years (minor), through natural guardian and mother Smt. Saroj Kanwar;

¶25

All by caste Rajput, R/o Kishanpura, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶26

Vijay Kumar Sharma, s/o Moti Lal Sharma, aged 50 years, by caste Brahmin, r/o Gajsinghpura, Heerapura Power House ke Samne, Thana Shyam Nagar,(Shri Moti Maharaji Ka Makaan) Jaipur.

¶27

For Appellant(s) : Shri Vizzy Agrawal For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Shri M. Akbar Khan For Respondent No.4 : Shri Vinay Mathur for : Shri R.S. Rathore

¶28

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶29

Judgment / Order

¶30

15/5/2018

¶31

Vide this order above mentioned appeal as well as cross-objections filed by respondent No.4 shall be disposed of.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the Insurance Company was liable to be exonerated from its liability to indemnify the insured.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the insured. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company

¶34

¶35

Limited 2017(2) RAR 41 (S.C.) , wherein it was held as

¶36

under:-

¶37

“60. Thus, we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

¶38

60.1. ‘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.

¶39

60.2. 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 undersection 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.

¶40

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

¶41

60.4. 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.”

¶42

Claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of

¶43

¶44

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Chiman Singh in the motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 18.6.1999. Vide the impugned award dated 20.10.2004, Tribunal allowed the claim petition and granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,20,144/- to the claimants. Hence, the present appeal by the Insurance Company.

¶45

Controversy involved in the present case is whether the driver of the offending vehicle could drive a light commercial vehicle as he was having a driving licence authorising him to drive a light motor vehicle. The controversy in the present case is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra). Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Consequently cross-objections filed by respondent No.4 are rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.

¶47

(SABINA)J.

¶48

Mrg./40-41

N I C v. Saroj Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N I C v. Saroj Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharwan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rohitashaw Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Yogesh Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Maya Devi Vs Prem Singh

Rais Ahmed Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Kishan Pyari Vs Smt Deepa Subin