1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

JUDGMENT

(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 740/2010

National Insurance vs. Rakama & ors.

Company Limited

(2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 742/2010

National Insurance vs. Roopa & ors.

Company Limited

(3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.741/2010

National Insurance vs. Dhanji & ors.

Company Limited

(4) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 739/2010

National Insurance vs. Ramesh & ors.

Company Limited

u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

against the judgment and award dated 3.2.2010

passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Banswara in Civil Misc. Cases No.

228/2007, 185/2010, 217/2007 & 252/2007

respectively.

Date of Judgment:

06.09.2012

PRESENT

HON'BLE MRS. NISHA GUPTA, J.

Mr. Sanjee Johari for the appellant.

Mr. Parikshit Nayak and Mr. Mahendra Trivedi for the claimants.

BY THE COURT:

Since common question is involved in all these appeals

hence they are being decided by this common order.

The short facts of the case are that on 26.7.2008 at

about 8 a.m. when the deceased and injured persons were

going in Vehicle No. RJ 12/TA-0030 towards

Dairy-Banswara

2

Road which was being driven by respondent no.1-Dharji rashly

and negligently and collied with the railing of the bridge

whereby one Chandna died and three other claimants Dhanji,

Rakma and Ramesh have received severe injuries. All the

claimants and the legal representatives of deceased Chandna

preferred claims petition which were allowed by the learned

Tribunal, hence these appeals.

The only contention of the Insurance Company is that

issue no.3 has been wrongly decided against the Insurance

Company. Admittedly, the jeep in which injured and the

deceased were going was a passengers carrying vehicle,

commercial transport vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was

not possessing a valid licence and the learned Tribunal has

decided issue no.3 against the Insurance Company only on the

ground that the transport vehicle and light motor vehicle are of

the same gross weight and no distinct licence is needed to

driver a transport vehicle. The driver who was having a driving

licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can not drive a

transport vehicle.

Per contra, the contentions of the respondents are that

the driver was having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle,

he is also authorised to driver transport vehicle which also falls

under the category of light motor vehicle.

3

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned award.

Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides necessity for

driving licence which reads as under:-

“3. Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No

person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public

place unless he holds an effective driving

licence issued to him authorising him to drive

the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a

transport vehicle other than a motor cab or

motor cycle hired for his own use or rented

under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of

section 75) unless his driving licence specifically

entitles him so to do.

(2) The conditions subject to which sub-

section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving

instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be

such as may be prescribed by the Central

Government.”

and Section 10 of the Motor vehicles Act provides for

different licence which reads as under:-

“Form and contents of licences to

drive.- (1) Every learner's licence and driving

licence, except a driving licence issued under

section 18, shall be in such form and shall

contain such information as may be prescribed

4

by the Central Government.

(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may

be, driving licence shall also b