Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 265 (RAJ)

Modi Ram v. Kishan Giri

2021-02-02

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above appeals are taken up and decided by this common order as the issue involved in these appeals is identical. 2. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.03.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 188/2009, 187/2009, 183/2009, 184/2009, 185/2009 & 186/2009. 3. The above appeals have been filed by the owner of the vehicle on the ground that after adjudicating the claim petitions, learned Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4. Heard. 5. Briefly the facts necessary to be mentioned are that on 25.01.2006, driver of TATA 207 bearing registration No. RJ G 5792 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting into the accident. The occupants who are claimants in this case suffered injuries and for the same, claim petitions were preferred before the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal after framing of the issues adjudicated the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the claimants in the present case on the basis of evidence adduced therein. The liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the present appellant on the ground that the driver of TATA 207 vehicle was not holding a requisite license for driving the vehicle which met with an accident. It was noted by the Tribunal that requisite endorsement on the Light Motor Vehicle license of the driver was not there. Thus, the driver was not eligible to drive Light Transport Vehicle involved in this case. Thus, the tribunal has awarded the compensation to be paid by the owner of the truck. 6. The counsel for the appellants submits that this finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 is not in consonance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Mukund Devangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 . In the light of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Devangan (supra), the appellant cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants and the compensation is required to be paid by the Insurance Company. 7. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 . In the light of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Devangan (supra), the appellant cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants and the compensation is required to be paid by the Insurance Company. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the judgment and award dated 15.03.2010 and submitted that no error has been committed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue of liability. The counsel for the Insurance Company, however, is not in position to controvert the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mukund Devangan (supra). 8. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, I am of the view that it is an admitted position that the vehicle involved in the present case was a transport vehicle of the make ‘TATA 207’. Admittedly, the weight of the vehicle involved in the accident is less than 7500 kg. It has also come on record that the claimants sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 25.01.2006. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that driver of the truck was not holding requisite license to drive the subject vehicle is not correct, more particularly in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Devangan (supra). The findings recorded by the Tribunal are, therefore, liable to be set aside and since, the transport vehicle was weighing less than 7500 kg, the driver of the offending vehicle TATA 207 bearing registration No. RJ G 5792, which met with the accident on 25.01.2006, was competent and eligible to drive the vehicle as he was holding requisite license to drive the light transport vehicle which includes eligibility to drive the vehicle involved in this case. 9. In view of the discussions made above, the present appeals are allowed. The finding recorded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 15.03.2010 qua the appellant to pay the compensation is set aside and respondent No. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation amount in the present cases.