[2025:RJ-JP:26728] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3573/2006 Dhan Singh S/o Gordhan Yadav, R/o Saranwas, District Alwar Rajasthan (Owner of the Vehicle) ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Fakir Chand S/o Matadeen, R/o Village Ladpur, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar Injured. 2. Mst. Champa W/o Fakir Chand, R/o Village Ladpur, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar Injured. 3. Kailash Chand S/o Fakir Chand, R/o Village Ladpur, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar Injured. ----Claimants/Respondents 4. Pradeep Kumar S/o Raghuveer, R/o Saranwas, District Alwar. Driver. 5. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Behind Old Power House, Alwar Through Its Branch Manager. ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raajpal Choudhary Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 17/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the non-claimant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 21.09.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh (Alwar) in claim application No.70/2003, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and a compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per [2025:RJ-JP:26728] (2 of 4) [CMA-3573/2006] annum was awarded and while deciding issue No.3 on account of violation of Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company was exonerated and liability to pay compensation was fasten upon the owner of the vehicle. 2. The limited question posed to this Court is qua the finding of issue No.3 recorded by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the facts of the case have not been reiterated herein. 3. It is evident that the driver of the vehicle i.e. Tata-407 bearing No. RJ-02-G-2401 caused the accident and at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was possessing license only authorized to drive light motor vehicle valid from 05.03.2001 to 04.03.2002 and he was driving light transport vehicle Tata-407 and from the registration certificate of the said vehicle, it is reflected, unladen weight of the subjected vehicle was 5360 kgs. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that unladen weight of the vehicle (Tata-407) in question is less than 7,500 kgs, therefore, liability to pay compensation ought to have been fasten upon the Insurance Company in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v. Rambha Devi reported in 2024 INSC 840, wherein it was 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." [2025:RJ-JP:26728] (3 of 4) [CMA-3573/2006] 5. In the matter of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2017 INSC 576, 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 was 5360 kg, which is below 7500 kg. 6. Therefore, in the view of the judgment in Rambha Devi (Supra) and Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the liability to pay compensation cannot be fasten upon the owner, accordingly, prayed for modification of the finding of issue No.3. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the said submission and submits that learned Tribunal after due appreciation of facts and evidence has rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference, therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant may kindly be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From the record, it is evident that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Tata-407) RJ-02-G- 2401 and as per Insurance Policy and registration certificate, unladen weight of the said vehicle is 5360 kgs, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the driver of the insured vehicle was possessing license only for light motor vehicle and he was driving light transport vehicle Tata-407 therefore, the liability was fasten upon the owner of the vehicle. [2025:RJ-JP:26728] (4 of 4) [CMA-3573/2006] 10. [2025:RJ-JP:26728] (4 of 4) [CMA-3573/2006] 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rambha Devi (Supra) and Mukund Dewangan (Supra), held that if unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kgs then, it cannot be said that the person who is authorized to drive light motor vehicle is not competent to drive a light transport vehicle having gross weight under 7500kg and in the present case, the unladen weight of insured vehicle is 5360 kg, much less than 7500 kg. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and deserves to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the finding of issue No.3 is modified and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent- Insurance Company is held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant instead of the owner of the vehicle. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-60