Partly allowed

Sanjay Dadhich v. Reenu Bai and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2025CMA/1299/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal award that exonerated an insurance company due to the driver's license violation. The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that an LMV license covers transport vehicles up to 7500 kg, set aside the Tribunal's finding, and directed the insurer to pay the compensation.

What did the court decide?

Issue No.4 findings set aside; Insurance Company directed to pay the awarded compensation instead of the appellant; amount deposited refunded to appellant.

Sanjay Dadhich Vs Reenu Bai and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:24467]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1299/2017

¶4

Sanjay Dadhich S/o Anirudh Dadhich, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Sarover Nagar, Itawa, Tehsil Piplad, District Kota Kota Raj Registered Owner Of Vehicle Metadoor No. Rj-20G 6583

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Reenu Bai S/o Rajesh Meena, age 24 years R/o Village Khayawada, Tehsil Piplad, District Kota.

¶8

Moolchand W/o Jagannath, age 58 years , R/o Village Khayawada, Tehsil Piplad, District Kota.

¶9

Kanti Bai W/o Moolchand age 56 years , R/o Village Khayawada, Tehsil Piplad, District Kota.

¶10

Vishnu Prasad S/o Moolchand age 25 years , R/o Village Khayawada, Tehsil Piplad, District Kota.

¶11

Nand Lal Meghwal S/o Bajrang Lal Meghwal, age 38 years , R/o Village Luhawad, P.s. Ayana, District Kota Raj Driver Of Vehicle Metadoor No. Rj-20 G 6583

¶12

Iffko Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Jhalawar Road, Kota. Raj, (Insurance Company Vehicle Metadoor No. Rj-20G 6583)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Amit Dadhich
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ritesh Jain
	Ms. Poornima Mishra

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order

¶16

03/07/2025

¶17

The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred as ‘M.V. Act, 1988’) challenging the award dated 08.12.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal No.2, Kota (hereinafter referred as ‘learned Tribunal’) in claim case No.334/2013 titled as Reenu Bai and Ors. Vs. Nand Lal and Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been partly allowed and an

(2 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:24467]

[CMA-1299/2017]

award of Rs.6,70,800/- along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum has been passed.

¶22

That the brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 21.12.2011 at 06:30 P.M., deceased Rajesh Meena, along with Dwarki Lal and Rajesh Yadav, was standing in front of a hotel near the temple of Kherli Maharaja Hanuman Ji when the driver of Metador No. RJ 20-G-6583 (the vehicle in question), coming from Etawah, drove the vehicle at high speed, negligently and recklessly, and hit Rajesh, resulting in his death on the spot. A report was lodged at Etawah police station, and after investigation, a chargesheet was filed against applicant number 1, Nandlal, for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The non-applicants denied the averments made by the applicant due to lack of information but admitted vehicle details. They claimed the deceased, Rajesh Meena, was intoxicated, acted carelessly, and was solely responsible for the accident. They argued the accident might have been a murder disguised for compensation, pointing to missing post-mortem and unclear police action. They asserted the driver lacked a valid license and permit, violating insurance terms, and that no accident intimation was given to the insurer. They maintained that, if liable, the insurance company's responsibility is limited per policy terms and sought dismissal of the claim with costs.

¶24

The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, framed five issues. That on behalf of the claimant, two witnesses were examined as AW-1 Smt. Renubai and AW-2 Rajendra and Exhibits

[2025:RJ-JP:24467]

[CMA-1299/2017]

(3 of 5)

1 to 20 were exhibited as documentary evidence. On behalf of the non-applicant, statement of NAW-1 Nandlal Meghwal, NAW-2 Parveen Akhtar and NAW-3 Suresh Kumar were recorded and in documentary evidence, Exhibit NA-1 (statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Rajendra), Exhibit NA-2 (DL record of Nand Lal), Exhibit NA-3 (insurance policy), Exhibit NA-4 (investigation report) and Exhibit NA-5 (DTO verification report) were exhibited.

¶29

That the learned Tribunal, after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition vide award dated 8.12.2016, deciding the issues against the appellant and awarding Rs.6,70,800 as compensation in favour of the claimants, while exonerating the insurance company from liability. 6. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred while deciding the issue No.4 in exonerating the Insurance Company mainly because the driver of the vehicle, namely Nand Lal Meghwal (respondent No.5 herein), had a valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle, whereas he was driving light transport vehicle. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company mainly because the driver of the vehicle did not have any effective and valid driving license and the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the present appellant. He submits that the controversy involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v. Rambha Devi reported in 2024 INSC 840 . Therefore, he prays that the findings recorded under the impugned award qua the issue No.4 may be modified

(4 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:24467]

[CMA-1299/2017]

and the liability to pay award be fastened upon the Insurance Company.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of the appeal qua the issue No.4. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case as also the relevant citations so relied upon by the counsel for the appellant. 9. A bare perusal of the record of the case, reveals that the driver of the vehicle, Nand Lal Meghwal (respondent No.5) was in possession of a driving license for driving a motor cycle and light motor vehicle, whereas he was driving a light transport vehicle, having gross weight of 5300 kilograms, therefore, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company because of alleged violation of the Insurance policy by the present appellant. The controversy with regard to the fact is that whether the driver of light motor vehicle is entitled to drive light transport vehicle up to the weight of 7500 kilograms stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rambha Devi (Supra) where, while upholding the judgement in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2017 INSC 576 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

¶35

"A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section

[2025:RJ-JP:24467]

[CMA-1299/2017]

(5 of 5)

10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the

¶40

‘Transport Vehicle’ class."

¶41

In the matter of Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the holder of a driving license to drive class of "Light Motor Vehicle" is competent to drive a vehicle, the gross weight of which does not exceed to 7500 Kg. In the instant case, the unladen weight of the vehicle was 5300 kg, which is below 7500 kg.

¶42

Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal under issue No.4 is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rambha Devi (Supra) and Mukund Dewangan (Supra) . Accordingly, the present appeal succeeds and findings recorded under the impugned award qua issue No.4 is hereby set aside and modified. Consequent thereto, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and the insurance company is directed to make payment of the awarded amount to the claimant instead of the present appellant, hence, this present appeal is partly allowed qua issue No.4.

¶43

Amount deposited in compliance of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may be refunded to the appellant.

¶44

All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶45

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

¶46

SOURAV /81

Sanjay Dadhich v. Reenu Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Dadhich v. Reenu Bai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyochand Jat S/O Shri Boduram Vs State of Rajasthan

Priyanshu Gulpadiya S/O Balkrishan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Umesh Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Rajender Prasad Yadav, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Kusum Sharma and Ors. Vs Vanay Singh and Ors.

Smt Krishna Devi and Ors. Vs Munesh Kumar and Ors.

Akeeba Nagauri Vs Rakesh Meena and Ors.