TheAppeal was dismissed. The High Court relied on Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court precedents to uphold the Tribunal's award, holding that license mismatch and permit violations do not absolve the insurer of liability.
The appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award was dismissed as there was no substance in the case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 2)
[CMA-1205/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1205/2020
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., The Incharge , Tp Claims Hub, Abhay Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur (Insurance Company)
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s)
: Mr. Vipul Singhvi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order
11/01/2021
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.2.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,31,827/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application. Further the Insurance Company has been held liable for making payment of compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the decision of the Tribunal on issue No.4, made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in holding the appellant Insurance Company liable for making payment of compensation, inasmuch as, there is violation of policy conditions, whereby, the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence, the vehicle was a
(2 of 2)
[CMA-1205/2020]
commercial vehicle while the driver was holding a licence authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle only.
Further submissions have been made that there was lack of valid permit for operating the vehicle at the place where the accident had occurred and on that count also, the appellant Insurance Company could not be held liable.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record.
The issues as raised by the appellant are no more res integra , inasmuch as, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: (2017) 14 SCC 663, has held that a person holding licence to driver ‘light motor vehicle’ is entitled to drive ‘light transport vehicle’ as well, and the issue of requirement of a valid permit for the place where accident has taken place has been dealt with by this Court in R.K. College v. Ramesh Chand & Ors. : 2008 RAR 48 (Raj.) , wherein, it has been held that if the owner is in possession of a valid permit, the fact that the vehicle was being plied beyond the permitted area, cannot give rise to a defence to the Insurance Company to disown its liability.
In view of the above legal position, no case for interference in the award impugned is made out. There is no substance in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
53-Sumit/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation where the driver had a light motor vehicle license but drove a commercial vehicle without a valid permit.
Whether violation of policy conditions regarding license class and permit area invalidates the insurance award.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.Relied on¶24
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: (2017) 14 SCC 663 · Who else cites this
R.K. College v. Ramesh Chand & Ors.Relied on¶24
R.K. College v. Ramesh Chand & Ors. : 2008 RAR 48 (Raj.)
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Shankar Lal Jat
Vinod Kumar Lakhara
Pawan Kumar Lakhara
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
