Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3060
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
TAJMAL AND ORS. – Respondent
CMA / 2476 / 2017
Mr. Mukul Singhvi.
A driver with a Light Motor Vehicle license is permitted to operate certain transport vehicles without additional authorization, as upheld by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 3(1) and 10(2)(d) - Appeal against compensation award - Delay in filing appeal condoned - Tribunal awarded Rs.5,30,000/- for death of minor in accident caused by negligent driving - Validity of driver's license for tractor questioned - Supreme Court precedent established that LMV license suffices for certain transport vehicles. (Paras 5, 6, 11, 12)
(B) Appeal - Grounds for appeal - The appellant contended that the driver lacked a valid license for the tractor, but the court found this argument unsustainable based on established legal precedent. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, a 14-year-old, was killed in an accident involving a tractor driven recklessly by the respondent. The claim for compensation was filed based on the deceased's age and alleged earnings. (Paras 7, 8)
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed as the argument regarding the driver's license was not supported by law, affirming the Tribunal's award of compensation. (Paras 11, 13)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the driver's license and the appropriateness of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a driver with an LMV license is permitted to operate certain transport vehicles without additional authorization, thus dismissing the appellant's argument regarding the license. (Paras 11, 12)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Order
13/02/2025
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that service of notice of respondent No. 3 may be dispensed with.
2. At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellant, service of notice of respondent No.3 is dispensed with.
3. Despite service of notice on the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5, no one is present.
4. The matter comes upon an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
5. For the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
6. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 17.04.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sujangarh, District Churu in Civil Misc. Claim Case No.32/2013, whereby, the Tribunal has held the appellant as well as respondent Nos.3 to 5 liable to pay the compensation in the tune of Rs.5,30,000/- jointly and severally.
7. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the instant appeal are that on 15.02.2013, at around 12:30 PM, the deceased Abdul Malik (aged 14 years) was standing on the roadside in front of Hiralal’s shop. At that time, a Mahindra tractor (registration number RJ 10 RA 6722) came from the Chungi Naka side at a very high speed, swerving uncontrollably. The tractor was being driven negligently and recklessly by respondent No.3 - Dhanraj alias Dhannaram, who lost control and hit Abdul Malik, knocking him to the ground. The front wheel of the tractor ran over him, leading to his immediate death. Eyewitness Liaqat Qazi and others stopped the tractor, but the driver, Dhanraj Bawari, fled the scene. The deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The accident was reported to the police on the same day i.e. 15.02.2013 at 2:00 PM by Abdul Rashid at the Government Hospital, Sujangarh. Based on this report, FIR No. 68/13 was registered at Police Station Sujangarh under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
8. A claim petition was filed before the learned MACT, Churu being Civil Misc. Claim Case No.32/2013. In the petition, the petitioner has claimed that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 14 years old, engaged in manual labor, and earning ₹5,000 per month. Compensation of ₹33,20,000 has been sought from appellant and respondents No.3, 4 & 5 for the death of Abdul Malik in the accident.
9. Based on the submissions made by the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as four issues and awarded a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- and held the appellant – Insurance Company and respondent Nos.3 to 5 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned award solely on the ground that the driver was not having a valid license to ply the Tractor and he was having a license to drive the light motor vehicle. He submits that the learned Tribunal has also awarded the compensation on higher side.
11. This Court finds that the issue of having a valid license for driving the Tractor, which has caused the accident and the fact that the Driver was not having the valid license to drive the Tractor. Thus, he was having a license to drive the Light Motor Vehicle, has already been adjudicated by this Hon’ble Court iHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No.841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024 has upheld the decision in the case of “Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” 2017 14 SCC 663 and thus, the requirement of having transport license to drive the Tractor which is a goods transport vehicle was not required as the respondent- driver was having the driving licence of light motor vehicle category. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“…. 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:-
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d
