[2026:RJ-JD:4588]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1578/2008

1. Jhunjhar Singh, s/o Shri Deep Singh, age 40 years, R/O Shrevat Singh's Dhani, Jaisalmer

2. Tanej Raj Singh alias Tanesingh s/o Visrajsingh caste Rajput R/O Nooraniyon ka Paar, Sundara Tehsil Shiv District Barmer currently R/O Renwatsingh ki Dhani Jaisalmer District, Jaisalmer ----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Guddi wife of Dharuram

2. Ms. Kali, daughter of Dharuram, age 10 years

3. Ashok son of Dharuram, age 08 years

4. Vikram son of Dharuram, age 07 years R/O village Sodha, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer, currently R/O CAD Colony, Totaram Ki Dhani Ward No. 12, Myajlar Road, Jaisalmer, Respondent No. 2 to 4 minors through natural mother Smt. Guddi.

5. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Office- Jodhpur ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Nimla HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

21/01/2026

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed against the judgment/award dated 18.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer (“learned Tribunal”), in MAC Case No. 65/2006, whereby respondent-claimants were held entitled for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,03,000/- and liability to pay was fastened upon appellants with interest @7.5%

per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are that on 08.08.2006, at about 08:30 am, the deceased, namely, Mr. Dharu Ram was travelling in a tempo bearing registration no. RJ-15-PA-0057. The said vehicle was driven by Mr. Tanej Raj Singh, who was driving rashly and negligently. Consequently, the vehicle lost control and overturned which resulted in the death of Mr. Dharu Ram. The said vehicle was insured by the respondent-

insurer.

3. A claim petition was filed on 18.09.2006 by legal representatives of the deceased before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.29,50,000/. It was submitted that deceased was a labourer, earning Rs.6,000/- per month.

4. On basis of pleadings of the parties, Tribunal settled 5 issues for determination. With regard to issue no. 1, Tribunal examined various evidence on record and held that driver of the offending vehicle was indeed driving rashly and negligently.

5. With regard to issues no. 2 and 4, the liability to pay compensation, was fastened upon the driver and the owner of the vehicle on the ground that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy as vehicle was driven by the driver possessing a license only to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (“LMV”), whereas the vehicle was a commercial vehicle. On such finding, the Tribunal exonerated the respondent-insurer while observing that appellant-driver was not having a valid licence for a commercial vehicle, which resulted in violation of the Policy.

6. Learned Tribunal vide its order dated 18.07.2007, awarded compensation to respondent claimants amounting to Rs.7,03,000/- and the liability to pay, was fastened upon the appellants along with interest @7.5% per annum from date of filing the claim petition.

7. The present appeal is, confined to a challenge against Tribunal’s finding of exonerating the respondent-insurer and holding appellants liable to pay the said compensation. Appellant does not challenge the quantum of compensation as awarded by learned tribunal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for appellants submits that Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer from its liability to pay compensation and in directing the appellants to pay compensation. It is contended that once the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive an LMV, no separate or additional endorsement was required for driving a goods vehicle. Therefore, he submits, that there is no violation of the insurance policy.

9. He further submits, that the finding of learned Tribunal regarding issues no. 2 and 4 is contrary to the law laid down in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insuranc