National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhema and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant insurance company can be held liable to reimburse the insured for the claim of the claimants as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur, Camp Sagwara in M.A.C.T. Claim No. 132 of 2005 (254 of 2003) vide award dated 22.9.2006. The Tribunal held that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving licence of light motor vehicle. Admittedly, there was no endorsement authorising him to drive transport vehicle and the accident was caused by him while driving a transport vehicle.

According to learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company, in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court delivered in the case of New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Another, and another judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, the insurance company cannot be held liable.

The learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamli Devi 2009 ACJ 2492 (Rajasthan) and submitted that this Court following the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, held that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive the transport vehicle looking to the weight of the vehicle.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments referred to above.

It appears that the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, was considered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Another, and, thereafter, it has been held that the definition of light motor vehicle would not include light transport vehicle.

In view of the above, this appeal deserves to be allowed and hence, allowed and it is held that the insurance company shall not be liable to pay any amount of compensation either to the owner or driver of the vehicle. The claimants shall be free to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. The amount which has already been paid by the appellant to the claimants may be recovered from the owner of the vehicle by the appellant.