Non-claimant/ v. Guddi Devi Widow Of Rajesh, R/o Village Motuka, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa Raj

Judgment

6. ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus Guddi Devi Widow Of Rajesh, R/o Village Motuka, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa Raj. Nidhi D/o Late Rajesh, R/o Village Motuka, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa Raj. Lali D/o Late Rajesh, Respondents No. 2 And 3 Minor Through Their Mother And Natural, R/o Village Motuka, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa Raj. Daulat Ram S/o Ghasi Ram, R/o Village Motuka, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa Raj. Batto Bai W/o Daulat Ram, R/o Village Motuka, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa Raj. ---Claimants/Respondents Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch At Jaipur ----Non-Claimant/Respondent For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Anil Agarwal on behalf of Mr. V. S. Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha with Mr. Dhirendra Chauhan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 07/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the non-claimant/ appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 23.08.2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bandikui, District Dausa (here- inafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal'), in Claim Petition No.152/2008, titled as "Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagram & Anr.", [2025:RJ-JP:24951] (2 of 6) [CMA-405/2014] whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents, and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,66,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

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

08.10.2008, the deceased- Rajesh was traveling to Shri Mahavirji on his motorcycle, bearing registration no. RJ-02-11M-0601, along with his father, wife and children. While crossing village Kaimla, another Motorcycle, bearing Registration No.RJ-34-SA-0937, driven rash and negligently by the non-claimant/appellant- Bhagram Khatana, collided with Rajesh’s motorcycle. As a result, Rajesh died on the spot.

3. Non-claimant/appellant-Bhagram Khatana filed a reply to the claim petition, denying the averments made by the claimants/ respondents. He submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased Rajesh and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Non-claimant/respondent-Insurance Company, filed a separate reply to the claim petition, wherein, the Insurance Company denied the averments made by the claimants/ respondents, stating that the insured vehicle was not being driven by a valid Driving License holder, and that the accident was not reported to the Insurance Company, both of which constitute violation of the insurance policy, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants/respondents.

5. That on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. [2025:RJ-JP:24951] (3 of 6) [CMA-405/2014]

6. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim petition, the claimants/respondents examined Daulat Ram (AW-1), Guddi Devi (AW-2) as witnesses, and produced twelve documents (Ex-1 to Ex-12). These documents included the FIR (Ex-1), DL Bhagram (Ex-2), RC (Ex-3), Insurance Cover Note (Ex- 4), Charge-sheet (Ex-5), Post-mortem Report (Ex-6), MI Report Motor Cycle No.RJ-34-SA-0937 (Ex-7), MI Report Motor Cycle Hero Honda Splendour Plus (Ex-8), Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act (Ex-9), Site Plan (Ex-10), Seizure Memo Motor Cycle No.RJ-34-SA-0937 - CT 100 (Ex-11), Fard Jabti Motor Cycle No.RJ-02-11M-0601 (Ex-12).

6. Despite being granted an opportunity, the non-claimant/ appellant or the non-claimant/Insurance Company chose not to present any oral or documentary evidence.

7. After hearing arguments from both parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim, and vide the judgment and award dated 23.08.2013 awarded a compensation of Rs.3,66,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the claimants/respondents. However, while deciding Issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal took note of the fact that the driver of the insured vehicle did not hold a valid license at the time of the accident, and exonerated non-claimant/respondent- Insurance Company, and held that since, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a welfare legislature, therefore, invoked the principles of pay and recover, it fastened the liability to pay the compensation amount on the non-claimant/respondent-Insurance Company, and [2025:RJ-JP:24951] (4 of 6) [CMA-405/2014] directed them to recover the same from the non-claimant/ appellant.

8. Being aggrieved of the impugned award dated 23.08.2013, the present appeal has been filed by the non-claimant/appellant (driver/owner).

9. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal was unjust, and that the learned Tribunal seriously erred in exonerating the non- claimant/respondent-Insurance Company. He further submitted that since the vehicle was insured, the Insurance Company was the one liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/ respondents. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be modified accordingly.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent- Insurance Company has supported the impugned award, and submitted that the impugned award is based on a correct appreci- ation of facts and law. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal, after a careful examination of the pleadings and relevant law, rightly passed the impugned award, while invoking the princi- ple of pay and recover. Therefore, he submitted that no interfer- ence by this Court is required and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

11. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

12. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the deceased Rajesh was driving a Motorcycle bearing Registration [2025:RJ-JP:24951] (5 of 6) [CMA-405/2014] No.RJ-02-11M-0601, which collided with another Motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ-34-SA-0937. It is also revealed that Bhagram, driver of the insured vehicle did not posses a valid driving license to drive a motorcycle and the non-claimant/ appellant Bhagram had a driving license for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and transport vehicle, which clearly indicates that Bhagram was not authorized to drive a motorcycle, which is a different class of vehicle.

13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Orien- tal Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors." reported in AIR 2008 SCC 2218, decided on 29.04.2008, observed as follows: "18. In the light of the above-settled proposition of law, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act."

14. The facts of the above mentioned judgment are aptly applicable to the present case. Here, the non-claimant/appellant Bhagram possessed a driving license of Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) and transport vehicle but at the time of the accident, he was driving a motorcycle, totally different class of vehicle in violation of Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. [2025:RJ-JP:24951] (6 of 6) [CMA-405/2014]

15. In view of Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court finds that the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company and granted the liberty to the company to pay and recover the amount from the non-claimant/appellant-Bhagram because the non-claimant/ appellant-Bhagram was driving a totality different class of vehicle, an act in violation of Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as well as violation of the terms and condition of insurance policy.

16. Therefore, the present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Seema/58 (MANEESH SHARMA),J