Mst. Savitri & Ors v. Radhey Shyam

: Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Rohan Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Garg with Ms. Sonal Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 06/05/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the impugned award dated 19.01.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City (hereinafter to be referred to as "MACT, Court") in MACT Case No.3/2004 titled as "Mst. Savitri & Ors. Vs. Radhey Shyam", whereby the award of Rs.3,33,400/- along with interest was passed in favour of claimants, and the Insurance Company has been exonerated.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Bane Singh, the driver of the vehicle Jeep [2025:RJ-JP:19003] (2 of 5) [CMA-2080/2009] bearing Registration No.RJ-34/P-0129, met with an accident with a Tractor on 14.11.2003 and subsequently expired. The legal representatives of the deceased, i.e., claimants-respondents No.1 to 5, filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The said claim petition was contested by the non-claimant no.1 appellant (owner) by filing reply, wherein it was submitted that the driver was having a valid license and the vehicle was insured.

4. The Insurance Company/non-claimant No.2-filed a reply and submitted that there was a violation with respect to the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the Insurance Company.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned MACT Court framed the following issues: ^^ 1- vk;k fnukad 14-11-2003 dks VzsDVj pkyd us xQyr ,oa ykijokgh ls VzsDVj dks pykdj e`rd jktsUnz flag tks fd thi ua- vkjts- 34@ih 0129 dks pyk jgk Fkk] ch-,M- dkyst fg.MkSu ds ikl VDdj ekj nh] ftlls jktsUnz flag dh e`R;q gks xbZA 2- vk;k DysesUVl Dyse ds en ua- 25 esa of.kZr Dyse jkf'k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA 3- vk;k chek dEiuh vius tokc esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij {kfriwfrZ ds fy, ftEesnkj ugha gSA 4- vuqrks"kA**

6. Thereafter, in order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined Smt. Savitri as AW.1, [2025:RJ-JP:19003] (3 of 5) [CMA-2080/2009] Bheem Singh as AW.2 and submitted documentary evidence marked as Ex.1 to 10. On the contrary, the Insurance Company examined Banshilal as NAW.1 and Mohanlal as NAW.2.

7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned MACT Court allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,33,400/- along with interest. However, while deciding issue No.3, the learned MACT Court has observed that since the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license, as he only possessed a license related to Light Motor Vehicle, and at the time of the accident, he was driving a commercial vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company was exonerated.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company while holding that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective license. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. reported in (2024) 4 CurCC(SC) 228, decided on 06.11.2024 and Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 3 ACC 360, decided on 03.07.2017, the controversy involved in the present case stands settled in favour of the appellant. Therefore, [2025:RJ-JP:19003] (4 of 5) [CMA-2080/2009] the impugned order and findings on issue No.3 should be modified.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned award. Thus, no interference is required in the present appeal.

11. From the record of the case, it is evident that on the date of the accident, the deceased was having a valid license for driving a motorcycle and a Light Motor Vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi reported in 2024(4) CurCC (SC) 228 while answering the reference held as under:

131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- (I) 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. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. Therefore, it is evident that the controversy involved in the present case is no more res-integra and stands settled in favour of the appellant. Thus, in view of the settled proposition of law, the [2025:RJ-JP:19003] (5 of 5) [CMA-2080/2009] findings recorded by the learned MACT Court under the impugned award qua issue No.3 exonerating Insurance Company being unsustainable is hereby set aside, and it is directed that since the vehicle was insured with the respondent no.7, therefore, the liability to pay compensation is fastened upon the Insurance Company.

12. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made herein above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned award stands modified to the extent that the finding on issue No.3 is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the exoneration of the Insurance Company is set aside, and it is ordered that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

13. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Seema/36 (MANEESH SHARMA),J