HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 643/2004 National Insurance Company Limited through its legally constituted authority, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Sangeeta D/o Shri Prathviraj (minor).

2. Rekha D/o Shri Prathviraj (minor).

3. Anju D/o Shri Prathviraj (minor).

Minors are represented through their natural guardian respondents No.4 & 5.

4. Beenjraj S/o Shri Navla.

5. Smt. Parwati W/o Shri Beenjraj.

All by caste - Kharwal, Resident of Village Pachpadra, Tehsil and District Barmer.

(Claimants)

6. Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Bastiram Bheel, Resident of Village Bhandu, Tehsil and District Jodhpur.

7. Madan Lal S/o Shri Virdha Ram Jat, Resident of Badliya, Tehsil and District Jodhpur.

(Non-Applicants No.1 & 2)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

11/02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 23.08.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra district Barmer (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.25/1994 whereby the claim application filed by the respondents-claimants has been allowed.

3. Brief noted facts in the present case are that on the intervening night of 18.09.1993 and 19.09.1993 at about 12:00- 1:00 AM, the deceased Prathviraj and Mangi Lal Ghanchi went to Sayla along with Mechanic Anop Singh as the vehicle of Prathviraj had broken down. When all the three persons were returning back after getting the vehicle repaired then at about 12:00-1:00 AM, near village Tapra, a truck bearing No.RNN-5507 loaded with the stones, which was being driven by its driver Shiv Ram, in a negligent and hasty manner came from opposite side and hit the vehicle of Prathviraj, due to which, Prathviraj died on the spot. Mangi Lal and Anoop sustained injuries. On account of death of Prathviraj in the accident, his legal heirs filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.8,35,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. The claimants also claimed interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants was allowed by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.4 is contrary to the record and the compensation awarded in the present case is liable to be intensify by the owner of the vehicle for the simple reason that the driver of the Truck-Shiv Ram was not hholding a valid driving licence. Learned counsel further submits that when the representative of the company investigated the matter and procured a certificate from the Transport Authorities of Cuttack, which reveals that the driving license produced by Shiv Ram was never issued by the concerned authority at Cuttack. Learned counsel also submits that the driver of the offending truck was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, there is a clear violation of the policy conditions and, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the awarded amount. Learned counsel further submits that the owner of the truck has also filed his own damage claim before the Insurance Company, but the same was rejected. Against the rejection of damage claim by the Insurance Company, the truck owner approached before the Consumer Forum and after proper adjudication, the Consumer Forum rejected the claim of the truck owner holding that the driving licence issued in favour of the driver Shiv Ram was forged one. He further submits that the order dated 29.01.1996 passed by the Consumer Forum was never further challenged by the owner of the truck before any competent Court. Learned counsel thus submits that in view of the find