Colony, Krishna Nagar, Mathura (U.P.) v. Prakash Chand S/o Chouti Ram, R/o Gram Birthala Police

Judgment

1. Prakash Chand S/o Chouti Ram, R/o Gram Birthala Police Station Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur. (Driver Tempo No. U.P. 85 P 9733)

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Alwar. ----Respondents/Non-claimants

3. Smt. Hansa Devi W/o Late Shri Murari Lal, R/o Ahir Mohalla, Kasba Deeg Bharatpur

Rahul Yadav S/o Late Shri Murari Lal Yadav Minor Through Care Of/ Their Mother Smt. Hansa Devi W/o, R/o Ahir Mohalla, Kasba Deeg Bharatpur

5. Deepak S/o Late Shri Murari Lal Yadav Minor Through Care Of/ Their Mother Smt. Hansa Devi W/o Lat, R/o Ahir Mohalla, Kasba Deeg Bharatpur

6. Ku. Rekha Yadav D/o Late Shri Murari Lal Yadav Minor Through Care Of/ Their Mother Smt. Hansa Devi, R/o Ahir Mohalla, Kasba Deeg Bharatpur ----Respondents/Claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. N. K. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Balwada with Mr. Shobha Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 12/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 02.06.2009 passed by learned [2025:RJ-JP:25959] (2 of 7) [CMA-67/2010] Additional District & Sessions Judge No.01, Deeg (Bharatpur), (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), in Motor Accident Claims Case No.70/2007, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants No.3 to 6 was partly allowed and the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,02,500/- as compensation in favour of the claimants/respondents No.3 to 6, and while awarding the compensation under the impugned award, the learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to initially pay the amount and subsequently recover it from the owner under the principle of 'pay and recover'.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle-Tempo (hereinafter referred to as the 'non- claimant/appellant'), challenging the findings on Issue No.3.

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

08.03.2007, the deceased Murari Lal Yadav was traveling in a Tempo bearing registration No. UP-85-P-9733 from Mathura to Goverdhan. The Tempo in question was being driven by the non- claimant/respondent No.1-Prakash Chand, in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the Tempo got overturned and the deceased Murari Lal Yadav succumbed to the injuries on spot. Therefore, the claim petition has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, seeking a just and proper compensation on account of death of the deceased Murari Lal Yadav. It was also pleaded that the deceased Murari Lal Yadav was 28 years old at the time of the accident, and was earning Rs.6,321/- per month, as a Garden Attendant under the Central Government, therefore, prayed for awarding of just compensation. [2025:RJ-JP:25959] (3 of 7) [CMA-67/2010]

4. The non-claimant/respondent No.1-Prakash Chand, filed a reply to the claim petition, wherein he denied the averments made by the non-claimant/appellant in the claim petition (on 25.02.2008) and submitted that since the tempo bearing no. UP-85-P-9733 is insured with the non-claimant/respondent No.2- Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company may be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant/respondent. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation maybe fasten upon the Insurance Company.

5. The non-claimant/appellant-Vasudev Singh Chahar, despite service of notice, chose not to contest the claim petition; thereafter, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him on

14.01.2008.

6. The non-claimant/respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its reply on 20.12.2007, wherein they denied the averments made by the claimants/respondents in the claim petition, and submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle tempo was driving with due diligence and the said accident occurred due to loss of control. It was also submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid and effective license, and submitted that the Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay any compensation to the claimants/respondents.

7. That on the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five (5) issues.

8. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined witnesses Smt. Hansa Devi (AW- 1), Sakshi Dalveer (AW-2), Mahendra Singh (AW-3) and produced eight documents (Ex.1 to 8). [2025:RJ-JP:25959] (4 of 7) [CMA-67/2010]

9. In rebuttal, respondent/non-claimant No.2-Insurance Company examined Shankar Lal Gupta (NAW-1), Prakash chand (Driver) (NAW-2), and produced the documents as Insurance Policy (Ex- No.A1), Verification Report of Surveyor of Company for Driving License (Ex-No.A2), Verification Report of DTO Bharatpur (Ex- No.A3), Photocopy of Driving License of respondent No.1 (Ex- No.A4), Photocopy of Registration Certification of offending vehicle (Ex- No.A5), Permit (Ex-No.A6), Fitness Certificate (Ex-No.A7) and Order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the MACT, Mathura vide dated

18.02.2008 Mathura in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Case No.113/2007 (Ex-No.A8).

10. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition vide award dated 02.06.2009, awarded a sum of Rs.9,02,500/- as compensation in favour of the claimant/respondent no. 3 to 6. While taking into account the age of the deceased as 28 years and considering his income to be Rs.6,024/-, a sum of Rs.9,02,500/- was awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent. However, while deciding Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal has observed that at the time of the accident, the driver of the Tempo had a valid and effective license for driving a light motor vehicle, whereas he was driving a light transport vehicle. Therefore, the Learned Tribunal found that, in view of the violation of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. However, considering the beneficial legislation, the learned Tribunal invoked the principle of pay a compensation and further directed to recover the same from the owner. [2025:RJ-JP:25959] (5 of 7) [CMA-67/2010]

11. Being aggrieved of which, the non-claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not correctly appreciating the driving license of the driver of the Tempo (Prakash Chand) in the right perspective. As on the date of the accident, Prakash Chand was authorized to drive vehicles of the following descriptions: motorcycle, light motor vehicle, and HTV (Heavy Transport Vehicle). Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the driver of the Tempo did not possess a valid license is incorrect and may kindly be set aside.

13. Per contra, Mr. Shailendra Balwada, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, has supported the impugned award and vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/non-claimant. He submitted that the learned Tribunal considered all aspects in detail, and after due consideration, the impugned award has been passed. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court and the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be dismissed.

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

15. From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the accident occurred on 08.03.2007. As per Ex-2, the driving license of Prakash Chand (driver of Tempo), he was authorized to drive vehicles of the following descriptions: motorcycle, light motor vehicle, and HTV throughout India, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the evidence available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:25959] (6 of 7) [CMA-67/2010]

16. Even otherwise, the law regarding a driving license, specifically concerning the fact that a license holder who is authorized to drive a light motor vehicle is also permitted to drive light transport vehicles up to a gross vehicle weight of 7500 Kgs, is already settled 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. Admittedly, in the present case, unladen weight of the Tempo is 405 Kgs; therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective license to drive the Tempo in question.

17. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.3 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside and reversed. It is settled proposition of law that since the driver possessed a license to drive a motorcycle, light motor vehicle, and HTV, he cannot be said to have violated any policy condition. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to Issue No.3 thereby fastening the liability upon the owner and exonerating the Insurance Company is set aside. Consequently, the direction given by the learned Tribunal to the Insurance Company to "pay and recover" the said amount from the owner is also set aside, further now, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded compensation to the claimant. [2025:RJ-JP:25959] (7 of 7) [CMA-67/2010]

18. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

19. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Seema/130 (MANEESH SHARMA),J