Rajasthan High Court
CMA/1581/2016 of KALLU KHAN Vs PAPPU LAL AND OTHERS on 13 March 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1598/2016 Shakeel S/o Shri Madari Khan, aged about 27 years, r/o Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Appellant-Claimant Versus 1. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Ram Dev, r/o Sardarpura, Tehisl Uniyara, District Tonk
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1598/2016
Shakeel S/o Shri Madari Khan, aged about 27 years, r/o Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)
----Appellant-Claimant
Versus
1. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Ram Dev, r/o Sardarpura, Tehisl Uniyara,
District Tonk (Raj.).(Driver)
2. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Kishan Lal, r/o Kheda, Tehisl Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.).(Owner)
3. H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Fllor, C-98, Sanghi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302 001 through Regional Manager
----Respondents-Non-claimants
Connected With
Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
----Appellant-Non-claimant
Versus
1. Saeeda S/o-Sonpal, age-42 Yrs, R/o-Allapura, Tehsil-Uniyara, District-Tonk.
2. Sonpal S/o-Eman Khan, age-42 Yrs, R/o-Allapura, Tehsil- Uniyara, District-Tonk.
3.Sakina D/o-Sonpal, age-21 Yrs, R/o-Allapura, Tehsil-Uniyara, District-Tonk.
4. Samina D/o-Sonpal, age-19 Yrs, R/o-Allapura, Tehsil-Uniyara, District- Tonk
5.Farmina D/o-Sonpal, age-16, Yrs
6. Sharmina D/o-Sonpal, age-13, Yrs
7. Arbaaj D/o-Sonpal, age-9 Yrs, All through Natural Guardian their Father Sonpal S/o-Eman Khan, age-42 Yrs, R/o-Allapura, Tehsil-Uniyara, District-Tonk
----Respondents/Claimant
8. Pappu Lal S/o-Ramdev, R/o-Sardar-pura, Tehsil-Uniyara, Dist.-Tonk. (Delete).
9. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 6-Floor Lila, Buisnis Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East)-Mumbai.
.......Respondents
Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
(2 of 7)
[CMA-1598/2016]
----Appellant-Non-claimant
Versus
1. Yasin S/o Kareem Khan, aged about 24 years, R/o Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
.......Respondent/Claimant
2. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Ram Dev, r/o Sardarpura, Tehisl Uniyara,
District Tonk (Raj.).
3.H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 6- Floor Lila, Buisnis Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East)-Mumbai.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1581/2016
Kallu Khan S/o Shri Hasan Khan, aged about 52 years, r/o Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)
----Appellant-Claimant
Versus
2. Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
3. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 3rd Floor, C- 98,- Sanghi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur- 302001 through Regional Manager
----Respondents/Non-claimants
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1582/2016
1. Smt. Saida wife of Shri Sonpal, aged 47 years
2. Sonpal son of Shri Eman Khan, aged 50 years
3. Kum. Sakina daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 26 years
4. Kum. Sameena daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 24 years
5. Kum. Farmina daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 22 years
6. Kum. Sharmina daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 18 years
7. Kum. Arbaj daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 14 years minor through her natural guardian and father Shri Sonpal All residents of Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)
----Appellant/Claimants
Versus
2. Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
3. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 3rd Floor, C- 98,- Sanghi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur- 302001 through Regional Manager
----Respondents/ Non-claimants
[2026:RJ-JP:10664]
(3 of 7)
Yasin S/o Kareem Khan, aged about 24 years, R/o Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
----Appellant-Claimant
Versus
2. Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
3. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 3rd Floor, C- 98,- Sanghi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur- 302001 through Regional Manager
----Respondents-Non-claimants
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1590/2016
Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
----Appellant-Non-claimant
Versus
1. Shakil S/o Madari Khan, aged about 22 years, r/o Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
..........Respondent/Claimant
3. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 6-Floor Lila, Buisnis Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East)-Mumbai.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s)
:
Mr. Sandeep Mathur (For claimant)
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Virendra Agrawal with
Mr. Prijwal Kumar (For Insurance
Company)
Mr. Atul Kumar Jain (Appellant in
CMA No. 1560/2016, 1561/2016 &
1590/2016 - for Owner of vehicle)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
13/03/2026
1. Since all the appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence they are being considered and decided together by this common
Judgment.
(4 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016]
2. These appeals challenge the judgment and award dated 20.11.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants were partly allowed and compensation was awarded in favour of the claimants as under:- S/N MAC Case No. (Name of Claimant) Amount
1. 665/2010 (Smt Saida & Ors.) Rs.4,70,000/-
2. 36/2011 (Shakeel) Rs.3,46,995/-
3. 37/2011(Kallu Khan) Rs.20,000/-
4. 38/2011(Yasin) Rs.1,02,337/- 2.1 Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the claimants have preferred appeal Nos. 1598/2016, 1581/2016, 1582/2016, 1583/2016 respectively, while the registered owner of the vehicle has preferred appeal Nos. 1560/2016, 1561/2016 and 1590/2016.
3. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the claim petition, are that on 24.02.2010, Asraj and other persons were going by Truck No. RJ-26-GA-1084, towards Tonk, carrying buffaloes and calves. The truck was being driven by the respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the truck overturned. Due to which Asraj died on the spot and the other persons sustained injuries.
4. The claimants, thereafter, filed claim petitions before the learned Tribunal, which were partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, the Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability on the grounds that:-
(5 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016] i. the deceased and injured persons were travelling in a goods vehicle, in which their risk was not covered under the insurance policy;
ii. the driving license of respondent No.1 was not valid at the time of accident; and
iii. the vehicle was allegedly being operated without a valid permit.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 propounded that a 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 issue is erroneous. 5.1 Learned counsel has also submitted that by way of an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, the registered owner has placed on record a valid permit to indicate that they were authorized to operate the offending vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident and therefore, under these circumstances, the registered owner of the vehicle cannot be held to pay compensation to the claimants. 5.2 The last submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in omitting to grant compensation in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
(6 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016] Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and proper and does not require interference of this Court.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the permit has now been placed on record by way of an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC on behalf of the registered owner, this Court is of the view that the matter requires re-consideration by the Tribunal in order to adjudicate the genuineness of the permit issued by the concerned transport authority. Parties shall be entitled to raise all the above issues before the learned Tribunal.
8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 20.11.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside qua the issue Nos.3 and 4 and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is expected to decide the said issues afresh, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 13.04.2026 and the Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petitions afresh, on the aforesaid issues after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, in accordance with law.
10. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order alongwith the record, to the learned Tribunal forthwith.
(7 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016]
11. Registry is further directed to return the original permit document filed alongwith application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, to the learned counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same.
13. With the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed of.
14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J TN/32-38