Partly allowed

Ali Akbar Gouri v. Smt. Santosh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Aug 2024CMA/765/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation. The court relied on Mukund Dewangan to hold that an LMV licence is valid for driving transport vehicles under 7500 kg, overriding the tribunal's exoneration of the insurer due to alleged licence defects.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to pay compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. till deposit, enhancing to 7.5% p.a. thereafter.

Ali Akbar Gouri Vs Smt. Santosh and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:34420]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 765/2016

¶4

Ali Akbar Gouri S/o Shri Sarajuddin Gouri (Manihar), aged about 33 years, R/o Gali No.47, Teli Road, Ladnu, District Nagaur. (Owner of Temp No.RJ-37-GA-1379)

¶5

----Appellant/Non-Claimant/Owner Versus

¶6

Respondents/Claimants -

¶7

Smt. Santosh w/o Late Pitharam,

¶8

Hans Raj s/o Late Pitharam.

¶9

Ramgopal s/o Late Pitharam, (All are R/o Harijan Basti, Ladnu, District-Nagour (Raj.)

¶10

- Respondents/Non-Claimants

¶11

Mohan Lal S/o Onkar Lal, r/o Jashwantgarh, Tehsil-Ladnu, District Nagour. ( Driver )

¶12

The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Nagour. ( Insurer ).

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Mankad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary for respondentInsurance Company.

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order

¶16

21/08/2024

¶17

The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner against the Judgment & Award dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deedwana, District Nagour in Motor Accident Claim Case No.54/2011 whereby, claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein was partly allowed and the liability of satisfying the award was fastened upon the appellant while exonerating insurance company from its liability of paying the amount of compensation.

¶18

The facts of the case are that claimants/respondents filed a claim petition in which they submitted that at around 2.30 to 2.45 PM on 02.05.2011, Pitharam (since deceased) was walking towards Ladnu Bus Stand. A tempo bearing registration No.RJ-37GA-1379 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with

[2024:RJ-JD:34420]

[CMA-765/2016]

(2 of 5)

Pitharam and he sustained several injuries and succumbed to death during treatment. The respondents/claimants claimed compensation under various heads. Reply was filed on behalf of owner as well as driver of the offending vehicle while denying the fact that there was negligence or any fault on part of the driver and thus, liability to pay the compensation is on part of Insurer of vehicle. The insurance company denied this averment and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶23

As per pleadings, learned Tribunal framed following issues:-

¶24

“(1) आयादि�नांक 02.05.11 कोदि�प्ቌीसं.1 मोहनलाल्ቛ ारा�ाहनटै्ቘ ो सं.आर.जे.37 जी.ए. 1379 कोगफलत�लापर�ाहीसेचलानेकेकारण पीथाराम�ु्ቈ"टना्ቇ्ቜ हुआऔरउसकेशरीरपरसाधारणए�ंगंभीरचोटेपहुंची, दिजसकेकारणपीथारामकीमृ्ቓु कारिरतहुई ?

¶25

(2) आयादि�प्ቌीगण्ቛ ाराजबाबमेंउठाईगईआपदि2योंकेआधारपरउनका कोई�ादिय्቙ नहींहै ?

¶26

(3) आया्ቚ ाथ5गण्ቇे ममेंबताईगईरादिशरूपया 33,78,796/- रूपयेतथा ाज�खचा" सदिहतअ्ቚाथ5गणसेपृथक-पृथकए�ंसंयु्ሹ रूपसेपानेके अदिधकारीहैं, यदि�हाँतोदिकतनी�दिकसदिकससे�दिकसक�र ? (4) �ा�रसी ?”

¶27

In support of the claim petition, the claimants/respondents examined 3 witnesses and exhibited as many as 43 documents to prove their case. The appellant/owner was examined as NDW-1 and also produced documentary evidence to prove his case. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants and liability to pay the same was fastened upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle whereas the insurance company was exonerated from paying the amount of compensation. Thus, being aggrieved of the same, the appellant herein has preferred the present misc. appeal.

[2024:RJ-JD:34420]

[CMA-765/2016]

(3 of 5)

Learned counsel representing the appellant/owner, vehemently opposes and submits that exoneration of the respondent Insurance Company from the liability as directed by the learned Tribunal is unsustainable, as the learned Tribunal has failed to establish the fact that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective license to ply the vehicle in question. He also submits that the licence which was produced by the driver, was verified by the DTO, Nagour as a light motor vehicle licence.

¶32

Per contra , learned counsel representing the respondentInsurance Company, at the outset, submits that there was breach of conditions of the policy of the insurance company as driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective licence to ply the vehicle in question, as he was only having the licence to ply light motor vehicle (‘LMV’) only. He also submits that the licence which was produced by the driver was a fake licence. Thus, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant herein.

¶33

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.

¶34

The short point raised in this misc. appeal for consideration of this Court is that whether driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident or not. It is an admitted fact that the driver of the offending vehicle had produced two licences, one was fake, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant/owner, and the other one was verified by the DTO, Nagour, which was for

[2024:RJ-JD:34420]

[CMA-765/2016]

(4 of 5)

light motor vehicle. Thus, the issue raised in this misc. appeal that the driver at the time of the accident was in possession of valid and effective licence or not, is no longer res integra and rests in view of the law propounded 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:-

¶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 under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.”

¶40

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.”.

¶41

Considering the above legal position and applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) ; that there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a

[2024:RJ-JD:34420]

[CMA-765/2016]

(5 of 5)

driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive a transport vehicle of such class without endorsement to that effect, 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 award passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Deedwana District Nagour in MAC Case No.54/2011, is modified to the extent that the respondent Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants as determined by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 18.12.2015 @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of ‘two months’ from today failing which, the interest shall stand enhanced @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization.

¶46

The instant misc. appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. Record be returned to the learned Tribunal forthwith.

¶47

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶48

162-/Devesh Thanvi/-

Ali Akbar Gouri v. Smt. Santosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Akbar Gouri v. Smt. Santosh 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

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

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

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

Mishri Lal S/O Setaram Vs Mohan Singh and Ors.

Mishri Lal Vs Suwa Lal

Smt.Sulochana Devi Vs Mazid