SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 2032

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Ram Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Bhajan Lal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 882/2010
Decided On : 16-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
Anil Bachawat, Advocate, Rakesh Matoria, Advocate

A driver holding a light motor vehicle license is eligible to operate a transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 kg, which establishes the insurance company's liability for compensation in motor accident claims.

Headnote:

[MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE] - [DRIVER'S LICENSE ELIGIBILITY] - [The court interpreted the legal provisions regarding the eligibility of a driver holding a light motor vehicle license to operate a transport vehicle under specific weight limits, as established in the Mukund Dewangan case. The court concluded that the driver was eligible to drive the pickup, thus reversing the tribunal's findings and holding the insurance company liable for compensation.]

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.1,25,885.00 in favor of the claimants following an accident involving a pickup vehicle. The owner of the vehicle contested the tribunal's finding that the driver was not eligible to operate the vehicle due to his driving license type.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tribunal's conclusion regarding the driver's ineligibility was incorrect based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mukund Dewangan, which clarified that a driver with a light motor vehicle license can operate a transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 kg.

Issues: Whether the driver of the pickup vehicle, holding a light motor vehicle license, was eligible to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, and whether the insurance company was liable for compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle from the Mukund Dewangan case, establishing that a light motor vehicle license suffices for driving a transport vehicle under 7500 kg, thereby invalidating the tribunal's findings.

Result: The appeal was allowed, the tribunal's findings were quashed, and the insurance company was ordered to pay the compensation amount to the appellants within eight weeks.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter comes upon an application for deciding the appeal in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited(Supra).

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and decided at this stage.

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and Award dtd. 23/7/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra District Hanumangarh in M.A.C. Case No. 06/2008 whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants has been allowed, an amount of Rs.1,25,885.00 was awarded as compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants. The present appeal has been preferred by the owner of the pickup vehicle which was involved in the accident which occurred on 9/9/2007.

4. The solitary ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 are contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra). He further submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 is not sustainable in the light of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra).

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has rightly issued the findings on Issue No. 3. However, he is not in a position to controvert the Judgment of the Apex Court.

6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the Judgment and Award dtd. 23/7/2009.

7. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 that the pickup was a transport vehicle and the driver of the pickup Vinod Kumar was only having a driving license of light motor-vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation in the present case, is not sustainable. In the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if a person holds a driving license of light motor-vehicle and if the motor-vehicle driven is less than 7500 kg in weight then the driver holding the license to drive light motor-vehicle is eligible to drive that vehicle, even if the same is a transport or a commercial vehicle. Therefore, in the light of the judgment by Apex Court, the driver Vinod Kumar was eligible to drive the pickup as he was holding the license to drive a light motor-vehicle. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal is not correct and therefore, the same is quashed and set aside.

8. The net result of the discussions made above is that the present appeal is allowed. The liability to pay the compensation is fastened upon Insurance Company and therefore, the amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company.

9. At this juncture, it is submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal in its Judgment dtd. 23/7/2009 has already been paid to the claimants by the appellants in the execution proceedings. Therefore, the Insurance Company shall pay the said amount to the appellants within a period of eight weeks.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top