Dismissed

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sh. Dharam Pal

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2024CMA/1704/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance appealed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.9.5 lakhs following a fatal accident involving a tempo driven by a holder of an LMV licence. Considering Supreme Court precedents regarding vehicle weight thresholds, the Court dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous appeal dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sh. Dharam Pal — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:34021]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1704/2023

¶4

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative, Jodhpur Office At N.k. Tower, Choupasni Road, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Dharam Pal S/o Sh. Ramshyah, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village And Post Dhigarla, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. (Claimant)

¶8

Smt. Indravati W/o Sh. Dharam Pal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village And Post Dhigarla, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. (Claimant)

¶9

Bhaga D/o Sh. Dharam Pal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village And Post Dhigarla, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. (Claimant)

¶10

Sunita D/o Sh. Dharam Pal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village And Post Dhigarla, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. (Claimant)

¶11

Mange Ram S/o Sh. Dharam Pal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village And Post Dhigarla, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. (Claimant)

¶12

Ramananad S/o Sultan Singh Dhanak, R/o Village Bairley Phurd, Tehsil And District Rewadi, Haryana. (Registered Owner)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order

¶16

16/08/2024

¶17

The instant misc. appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Award dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Rajgarh, District Churu in Motor Accident Claim Case No.125/2016 whereby, compensation of Rs.9,50,483/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and liability to pay the same has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants alleging inter alia that Ramesh Kumar (since

[2024:RJ-JD:34021]

[CMA-1704/2023]

(2 of 4)

deceased) along with his cousin Sukhbeer was going towards Sidhmukh on the motor cycle when at 10.15 AM, after reaching near Chainpura turn, they were hit by the insured tempo bearing registration No.HR-47-C-4950 coming from the opposite direction and as a result whereof, Ramesh Kumar received grievous injuries. He was immediately rushed to the hospital and later on, during the course of the treatment, he died. The said incident was reported to the police and after investigation, a challan came to be filed against the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and thus, a claim petition was preferred by the claimants.

¶23

Being insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. tempo, the Insurance Company in its reply denied its liability and contested the claim on various grounds including that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicles was not possessing valid and effective driving license to drive a transport vehicle.

¶24

As per pleadings, learned Tribunal framed following issues:-

¶25

“1- आयादि�नांक 18.05.16 कोव्ሹ 10.15 एएमपररामानं�, चालकववाहन्ቭ ामी, नेउसकेवाहनटै्ቘ ोअशोकादिलले्ቄ नं. एचआर 47 सी 4950 को चैनपुराबडावदिस्ቍ मुखकेबीचसडकआमपरतेजगदितवलापरवाहीसे चलाकरमृतककीमोटरसाइदिकलकेट्ሪ रमारकर�ु्ቈ*टनाकारिरतकररमेश कुमारकोगंभीरचोटेंकारिरतकी, दिजससेरमेशकुमारकीमृ्ቓु कारिरतहुयी ?

¶26

ाቕኍ2गण

¶27

2- आया्ቚ ाቕኍ2गणअपनी्ቇे मयादिचकामेंअंदिकत्ቌ दितपूदित* रादिशअ्ቚाቕኍ2गणसे ा्቎ करनेकेअदि8कारीहैं, यदि�हांतोदिकसदिकसअ्ቚाቕኍ2 सेतቕኍादिकतनीदिकतनी रादिश ?

¶28

ाቕኍ2गण

¶29

3- आयाअ्ቚाቕኍ2गणकीअपनेजवाबयादिचकामेंउठाईगईआपदितयांसाቕኍकहै, यदि�हांतो्ቄ ाअ्ቚाቕኍ2गणकाइसआ8ारपर्ቌ दितपूदित रादिशकीअ�ायगीका उनकाकोई�ादिय्቙ नहींहै ?

¶30

अ्ቚाቕኍ2गण

¶31

4- अनुतोष”

¶32

In support of the claim petition, 2 witnesses were examined and as many as 23 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the

[2024:RJ-JD:34021]

[CMA-1704/2023]

(3 of 4)

non-claimants, 1 witness was examined and two documents were exhibited. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the claimants and thus, being aggrieved of the same, the appellant-Insurance Company preferred the present misc. appeal.

¶37

The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle, however, the driver of the vehicle was having the licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle (‘LMV’) only. Thus, there was breach of conditions of the policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective licence to ply the vehicle in question and the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company.

¶38

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel and have carefully gone through the material available on record.

¶39

The controversy which is raised by the Insurance Company in this appeal is no longer res integra and rests in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 wherein, it has been held as below:-

¶40

“ 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

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:34021]

[CMA-1704/2023]

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 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.”

¶45

This Court is conscious of the fact that the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. : [(2017) 14 SCC 663] , has held that “During the pendency of this reference, the judgment of the three Judge Bench in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), shall continue to hold the field and all courts, tribunals and authorities shall, therefore, act on that basis.”.

¶46

Hence, in wake of the discussion made hereinabove, and applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and also looking to the observation made by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bajaj Allianz (supra) ; that the judgment of the three Judge Bench in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) shall continue to hold the field till the issue involved in M/s Bajaj Allianz (supra) is not adjudicated upon, the instant misc. appeal stands dismissed as being devoid of any merit.

¶47

No order as to costs.

¶48

Record be returned to the learned Tribunal forthwith.

¶49

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶50

109-/Devesh Thanvi/-

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sh. Dharam Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sh. Dharam Pal

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

Toga Ram Vs Purkha Ram

National Highway Authority of India Vs Meena

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Pushplata and Ors.

M/S Guru Nanak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Santosh Devi and Ors.

Ali Akbar Gouri Vs Smt. Santosh and Ors.