Allowed

Smt. Savitri Devi v. Bajaj Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2019CMA/779/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a judgment that exonerated an insurance company from liability on the ground that a mini bus was not an LMV. Higher Court followed a Supreme Court decision to include such vehicles under LMV and modified the award to hold the insurer liable.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 05.09.2012 modified to hold Insurance Company liable for compensation; appeal allowed to that extent.

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs Bajaj Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 779/2014

¶3

Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Madan Lal Sharma, aged about 50 years, resident of Mahuakhurd, Tehsil Baneda, District Bhilwara.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bajaj Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Through Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. O-12 Second Floor, Ashok Marg C Scheme, Jaipur (Raj)

¶7

Smt. Mangi Bai W/o ladudas Vaishnav, R/o Aarjiya, Tehsil & District Bhilwara.

¶8

Rameshwar Lal S/o Chunni Lal Chamar, R/o Babrana, Tehsil Baneda, District Bhilwara.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Bhati for Mr. Sanjay Nahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Choudhary

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

14/08/2019

¶14

For the reasons stated, delay in filing the appeal is

¶15

condoned.

¶16

Heard both the counsels on merits of the appeal.

¶17

This is the owner’s appeal whereby challenging the judgment and award dated 05.09.2012 passed by learned MACT Bhilwara holding therein liability of the owner and exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that the vehicle involved would not have been driven by person holding LMV license, as the vehicle would not fall within the category of Light Motor Vehicle. The bus involved was mini bus having weight less than 750/- Kg.

¶18

[CMA-779/2014]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

Issue is no more res-integra, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs.

¶21

OIC Ltd. reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 716 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :-

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

(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 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.

¶26

(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories

¶27

[CMA-779/2014]

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

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.”

¶30

In view of the categorical finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the award passed by the learned MACT dated 05.09.2012 is modified to the extent of issue No.3 and 4 holding the Insurance Company to be liable for the payment of the compensation awarded in view of the vehicle coming within the ambit of LMV.

¶31

Accordingly, the award passed by the learned MACT dated 05.09.2012 is modified as above. The appeal is allowed to the said extent.

¶32

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶33

1-Sudheer/-

Smt. Savitri Devi v. Bajaj Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Devi v. Bajaj Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Soni Vs Lrs of Rupa

Harish and Anr. Vs Smt.Meenu and Ors.

Om Prakash Saharan Vs Kaiya and Ors.

Vikram Vs Raichand

Raghunandan @ Raju Vs Man Singh and Ors.

Smt. Premvada and Ors. Vs Narayan Lal Mali