[2025:RJ-JP:49174] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6594/2016 1. Rampal Mahawar S/o Shri Onkar Mal, age 42 years 2. Raju Prasad S/o Shri Onkar Mal, age 40 years 3. Ratan Lal S/o Shri Onkar Mal, age 35 years 4. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Shri Onkar Mal, age 30 years 5. Amar Mahawar S/o Shri Onkar Mal, age 22 years All are R/o Village Dayalpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur Raj. ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Manoj Kummar S/o Shri Munna Lal, R/o Village Jatpura Tehsil Fatehbad District Aagra, U.P. ---- Driver Of Vehicle Ambulance No. UP-8-CT-0166 HR 38 L 4374 2. Help Aagra, Kishan Kumar Aggrawal S/o Lt. Shri Bhagwan Aggrawal R/o 1/12, Sahitya Kunj M.V. Road, Aagra, U.P. ---- Owner Of Vehicle Ambulance No. UP-8-CT-0166 HR 38 L 4374 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Regional Manager, Regional Office Beema Bhawan Ambadkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur. ---- Insurance Company of the Vehicle Ambulance No. UP-8-CT-0166 HR 38 L 4374 Insurance period 22.07.2014 to 21.07.2015, Policy No.35101031146335197405. ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rambabu Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, Adv. with Mr. Mohsin, Adv. [2025:RJ-JP:49174] (2 of 5) [CMA-6594/2016] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 03/12/2025 1. Matter comes up on an application No.1/2022 under Order 41 Rule 27(1AA) read with Section 151 CPC filed for taking additional document on record i.e. the RTI reply regarding the Driving Licence No.8011025331 of respondent No.1. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 3. The additional document submitted by the appellant is taken on record. 4. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) for the enhancement of the award amount passed in the judgment and award dated 07.09.2016 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Tribunal’) in MAC No.144/2015, whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been partly allowed only to the extent of Rs.50,000/- along with the interest @ 7.5% per annum. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has been partly allowed by learned Tribunal mainly on two grounds i.e. firstly, that the claimants-appellants are major and married sons of the deceased-Onkar Mal and they cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased and secondly, that the offending vehicle in this case is an ambulance (Transport Vehicle) bearing registration No. [2025:RJ-JP:49174] (3 of 5) [CMA-6594/2016] UP-80-CT-0166 and the respondent No.1-Manoj Kummar i.e. driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing any valid licence to drive the said Transport Vehicle, therefore, the liability to pay the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.50,000/- under the head of 'love and affection' was ordered to be paid by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively and the respondent No.3-Insurance Company was exonerated. 6. So far as the dependency of the claimants-appellants on the deceased is concerned, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants invites attention of this Court towards the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (1) Seema Rani & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 192 & (2) National Insurance Company Vs. Birender & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.24223/2020); decided on 13.01.2020. Learned counsel contends that in the aforementioned judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the married sons, though married, are representatives of the deceased and cannot be said to be not dependant on the deceased. Therefore, in the present case, the finding of learned Tribunal for considering the claimants-appellants as not dependant on the deceased, in the impugned judgment and award dated 07.09.2016 is erroneous and illegal. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants argues that learned Tribunal has observed in its finding that though, driver of the offending vehicle was possessing licence to drive 'Light Motor Vehicles' (hereinafter referred to as 'LMV'), however, the offending vehicle in this case was a commercial vehicle, therefore, he was [2025:RJ-JP:49174] (4 of 5) [CMA-6594/2016] not having any valid license to drive 'Light Transport Vehicle'. Learned counsel also argues that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.841/2018); decided on 06.11.2024, has clearly stated that the driver holding license for 'LMV' class is also entitled to drive a 'Light Transport Vehicle' without requiring any additional authorization for the same, therefore, the finding of learned Tribunal regarding this fact is also erroneous. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer made on behalf of the claimants-appellants and submits that learned Tribunal has not committed any error while deciding the claim petition, which needs no interference of this Court. Learned counsel invites attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Ors. reported in 2018(3) SCC 619. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mukund Dewangan (supra), Rambha Devi (supra) & Seema Rani (supra), the matter requires reconsideration by learned Tribunal. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and award dated 07.09.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, [2025:RJ-JP:49174] (5 of 5) [CMA-6594/2016] Jaipur in MAC No.144/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to learned Tribunal with a direction to learned Tribunal to decide it afresh, after granting an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in accordance with law. It is further directed that both the parties shall appear before learned Tribunal on 08.01.2026. 12. Learned Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition expeditiously as early as possible; not beyond the period of 6 months from the first date of hearing, so fixed by learned Tribunal. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal stands disposed of. Any other pending applications, also stand disposed of. 14. Registry is directed to return the document submitted by the claimants-appellants through the application under Order 41 Rule 27(1AA) read with Section 151 CPC to learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, after retaining the photocopy of the same on record. 15. Record of learned Tribunal be sent back, forthwith. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /23