[2026:RJ-JP:15612]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 488/2004 National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Patwari Bhawan, Kachahari Road, Ajmer, having its Regional Office at 10-

Narain Singh Road, Jaipur through its Regional Manager.

----Appellant/Non-claimant Versus

1. Jai Singh S/o Shri Suwa Singh, aged about 30 years, 2. Smt. Prem wife of Jain Singh, aged about 27 years, Both residents of Hakola-Ka- Badiya, Village Badliya, District Ajmer (Raj.)

...Respondent/Claimants

3. Shankar Singh s/o Shri Hem Singh Rawat, r/o Kotaj, P.S.

Mangliyavas, District Ajmer. (Driver Vehicle No. R.J.E.1002)

4. Pukhraj Chouhan S/o Shri Shiv Narain Mali, R/o 240/28, Purani Dhannadi, Balupura Road, Ajmer (Owner of the Vehicle)

---Performa-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore (for respondent No.4 - Owner of the vehicle)

Mr. Abhishek Pareek (for respondent Nos.1 & 2 - Claimants)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Judgment

15/04/2026

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company (for short 'appellant') under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 07.10.2003, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.601/1999, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants (for short ‘claimants’) was partly allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal stating therein that on 29.01.1999, when claimants' son namely Ajay (since deceased) was coming from field towards Hakola Ka Badiya, a truck bearing Registration No. R.J.E.-1002, being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner, ran over Ajay, as a result of which he died on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle i.e. truck was under the ownership of respondent No.4 and was insured with the appellant.

3. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sole grievance of the appellant is that at the time of accident, the Respondent No.3 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle was only having a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle whereas, the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle, and therefore he was not authorized to drive the same at time of accident. It is further submitted that under these circumstances, the appellant can’t be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

5.1 He also submits that the said objection was raised by the appellant before the learned Tribunal as well, however, the learned Tribunal without discussing the fact of the case, simply decided objection under the Issue No.4 against the appellant by recording that in a case where the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid driving license, the insurance company can still be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant and then it can be asked to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. He, therefore, prays to quash and set aside the finding on Issue No.4.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and submits that the respondent No.3 was having a valid driving license to drive a light motor vehicle, which was produced before the learned Tribunal as Exhibit-5. It is further submitted that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle was also produced as Exhibit-4, which reflects that the offending vehicle was a light transport vehicle and therefore, the responde