Office at Sahara Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur, through its v. Beawar Sadar, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer

Mr. Rizwan Ahmed for Mr. Ajeet Bhandari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Singh for Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the non- claimant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as “Insurance Company”) under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 19.01.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Beawar, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in claim case No.135/2012 (98/2012) (74/2011), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent was partly allowed and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that on

01.12.2010, Master Shahruq while travelling in a tempo bearing [2025:RJ-JP:26316] (2 of 4) [CMA-1096/2013] No. RJ-36-PA-1171 fell down on the road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo, as a result of which, Master Shahruq sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Consequently, a claim petition was filed by the claimant/respondent for seeking just compensation.

3. That after receiving notice of the claim petition, the non- claimants/respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and also denied the fact that the deceased- Master Shahruq was travelling in the tempo, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company also filed a reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that at the time of accident, the non- claimant/respondent No.2- driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed four issues.

6. In order to substantiate the averments, claimants/respondent examined herself as AW-1 and produced Ex.1 to Ex.25.

7. In rebuttal, non-claimants/respondents examined NAW-1 Shiv Singh, NAW-2 Ramesh Pandey and NAW-3 Gajanand and produced Ex. A-1 to A-2.

8. After hearing arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties, learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:26316] (3 of 4) [CMA-1096/2013] along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

9. Being aggrieved of which, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company principally assailing its liability on the ground that driver of the insured vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that tempo was a commercial vehicle and at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was possessing driving license of a light motor vehicle, and was not authorized to drive the light transport vehicle, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim qua the Appellant.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant opposes the said submission and submits that learned Tribunal has considered the facts in detail and correctly appreciated the pleadings of the parties and rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the awarded sum, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

12. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.

13. From the impugned order, it is revealed that at the time of accident the driver of the insured vehicle was possessing valid license which authorizes him to drive light motor vehicle whereas he was driving tempo bearing No. RJ-36-PA-1171 and from Ex.21 which is the registration certificate of tempo. It is also evident that the tempo in question was registered as light motor vehicle having unladen weight of less than 7500kg.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v. Rambha Devi reported in 2024 INSC [2025:RJ-JP:26316] (4 of 4) [CMA-1096/2013] 840 while upholding the ratio in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2017 INSC 576 held as under: "A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class."

15. In the matter of Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the holder of a driving license to drive class of "Light Motor Vehicle" is competent to drive a vehicle, the gross weight of which does not exceed to 7500 Kg. In the instant case, the unladen weight of the vehicle (tempo) was below 7500 kg.

16. Therefore, in the view of the judgment in Rambha Devi (Supra) and Mukund Dewangan (Supra), it cannot be said that the finding recorded by learned Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity, therefore, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant lack merit and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant- Insurance Company is hereby dismissed.

18. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. DEEPA-33 (MANEESH SHARMA),J