[2025:RJ-JD:13956]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1621/2017 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Deputy Manager, T.p. Hub, 2Nd Floor, 74 - A, Bhati N Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Kailash S/o Shri Kheta Ram, 2. Smt. Chuka Devi W/o Kailash, Both Are By Caste Meghwal, R/o Jasuriya, Tehsil Makarana, District Nagour.

3. Nimbu Ram S/o Sultan, By Caste Banjara, R/o Ganesh Dungari, Borawar, District Nagaur. Driver

4. Sultan S/o Mangla Ram, By Caste Banjara, R/o Ganesh Dungari, Borawar, District Nagaur. Owner ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. TRS Sodha For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

12/03/2025

1. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) has been preferred by the appellant-insurance company challenging the judgment and order dated 22.02.2017 (hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar, Nagaur (hereinafter as ‘tribunal’) in MAC No. 185/2013 whereby the learned tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,15,000/- along with interest @8% while holding the appellant-insurance company along with respondent Nos.3 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation however, insurance company was given liberty to recover the same from the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Kaluram (Aged 3 years) was playing outside his home, when Pick-up bearing registration no.RJ14 2G 3758 (hereinafter as ‘Offending Vehicle’), being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit Kaluram. As a result of the accident Kaluram sustained grievous injuries and ultimately met his demise during the course of treatment. Subsequently, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act was filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Kaluram (hereinafter as ‘deceased’). The appellant-insurance company and respondent Nos.3 and 4 (driver and owner) filed their seperate reply to the claim petition while denying the averments made therein. On basis of pleadings of the parties the learned tribunal framed five issues. After hearing both the parties, the learned tribunal vide the impugned award partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,15,000/- along with interest @8% while holding the appellant-insurance company along with respondent Nos.3 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation with liberty to the appellant-insurance company to recover the same from respondent Nos.3 and 4. Aggrieved by the same instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurance company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has restricted his submissions to challenge the finding of the learned tribunal whereby the liability has been fastened upon the appellant-insurance company jointly and severally along with the respondent Nos.3 and 4 with liberty to the appellant-insurance company to recover the same from the respondent Nos.3 and 4. He submits that the accident occurred when the respondent no.3- driver was driving the offending vehicle i.e., Light Transport Vehicle, however, the respondent no.3-driver did not have valid and effective driving license to drive ‘light transport vehicle’ at the time of the accident, and the same was in violation of the policy conditions hence, the learned tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurance company. He also submits that no appeal has been filed by owner/driver of the offending vehicle.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. This court finds that the respondent no.3-driver had the driving license to drive ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, which is an admitted fact. And in the present case the offending vehicle was a ‘light transport vehicle’ of a gross vehicle weight under 7500 Kg as r