Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

JUDGMENT

: S.B.CIVIL MISC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

I have considered the rival submissions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 31
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 32
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 33
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 34
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 35
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 36
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 37
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 38
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 39
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 40
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 41
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 42
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 43
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 44
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 45
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 46
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 47
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 48
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 49
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

No costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 50
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ARUN BHANSALI).J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1118734',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1118734',
		(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt Vimla and ors Vs Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Citation 1118734 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1118734',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-01-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :</p>JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.</p><p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.</p><p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.</p><p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.</p><p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.</p><p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.</p><p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.</p><p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.</p><p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.</p><p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.</p><p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.</p><p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.</p><p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.</p><p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.</p><p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.</p><p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.</p><p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.</p><p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.</p><p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.</p><p> I have considered the rival submissions.</p><p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.</p><p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.</p><p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.</p><p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.</p><p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.</p><p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.</p><p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.</p><p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.</p><p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.</p><p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.</p><p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.</p><p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.</p><p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”</p><p>.</p><p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.</p><p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.</p><p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.</p><p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.</p><p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.</p><p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.</p><p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.</p><p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.</p><p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.</p><p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.</p><p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.</p><p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.</p><p> No costs.</p><p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.</p><p> PKS-16',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1118734',
	(int) 1 => 'smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1118734/smt-vimla-vs-alias-kantilal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :',
	(int) 1 => 'JUDGMENT<p>: S.B.CIVIL MISC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> APPEAL NO.684/2004 Smt.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Vimla & ORS.versus Shri Kalu @ Kantilal & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 07.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.M.C.Bishnoi ) for the appellants.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> Mr.A.K.Dadhich ) for the respondents.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Mr.L.R.Pooniya ) ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the death of one Laxamanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 23.09.1997, the deceased Laxamanlal was riding on a Motor Cycle alongwith Kiran Kumar and Manjula, when it collided with a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-12-C-769 being driven by one Kalu @ 2 Kantilal, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Laxamanlal to which he succumbed.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> In the application, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years and was serving as a Patwari and his monthly salary was Rs.4,790/-, a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,120/- was claimed.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> The application was opposed by the respondents, whereby, the driver claimed that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The Insurance Company sought exoneration on account of violation of Policy conditions.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the driver, he himself was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Prakash Pandya was examined.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep – Kalu @ Kantilal.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In view of the fact that the driver was in possession of a learner's licence and the licence relied upon by him, authorized him to drive 'tractor only', on account of violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> While quantifying the amount of compensation, the Tribunal, assessed the age of the deceased at 39 yeaRs.income at Rs.4,790/-, applied multiplier of 16; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and 3 Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability; the driver Kalu @ Kantilal was possessing driving licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle, however, an endorsement 'Tractor only' as well was made on the licence, which endorsement is superfluous in view of definition of 'light motor vehicle' as contained in the Act; even if the driver was possessing learner's licence still the Insurance Company can't be exonerated of its liability, submissions were made seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the ground of excessive deduction and non-grant of future prospects.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Savita and Ors.v.Rewat Singh and Ors., 2013 ACJ2185 Sarla Verma & Ors.v.Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC121 National Insurance Company Limited v.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Swaran Singh and ORS.(2004) 3 SCC297 Learned counsel for the respondent-owner supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, so far as the exoneration of the Insurance Company was concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> It was submitted that even though the owner has not questioned the award still the issue can be examined in the appeal filed by the claimant and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors.v.Raja Ram and Ors., 2005 (5) RLW855 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the 4 award impugned.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> It was submitted that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence in view of the endorsement made in the licence which entitled him to drive 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> It was further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> I have considered the rival submissions.',
	(int) 22 => '<p> The Tribunal while dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company, considered the driving licence (Exhibit – A1).which was issued on 07.11.1994 and was valid for the period 07.11.1994 to 05.02.2012 and was effective for driving light motor vehicle with an endorsement 'Tractor only'.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> Subsequent thereto, it appears that the driver also had a learner's licence for 'HMV only' valid for the period 29.03.1997 to 28.09.1997.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> The Tribunal on considering the endorsement 'Tractor only' in the licence (Exhibit – A1).came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorized to drive Jeep, which is a 'light motor vehicle'.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') defines light motor vehicle and reads thus:- “(21) “light motor vehicle”.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500].kilograms;”.',
	(int) 27 => '<p> A bare reading of the said definition would reveal that the said definition is inclusive and includes a Motor Car or Tractor or Road- roller.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> In view of the fact that even if the driver was granted licence to 5 drive 'Tractor only', the same necessarily means that he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle and the endorsement in the licence after ticking 'light motor vehicle' and indicating 'Tractor only' was wholly superfluous.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> This court in the case of Savita (supra) while considering a similar issue held as under:- “6.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of light motor vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road-roller, but omnibus also, the gross or the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> Adverting to the registration certificate of the jeep, Exh.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> A4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said jeep was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the tractor, which is also a light motor vehicle as per the definition of light motor vehicle given in section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, then he was authorised to drive the jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1,060 kg.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> Since both the offending jeep and the tractor are found to be light motor vehicles, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the jeep also as the jeep is also equally a light motor vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV.”',
	(int) 36 => '<p>.',
	(int) 37 => '<p> In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep, which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, deserves to be reversed and, consequently, issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal is answered in the manner that the Insurance Company alongwith driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p> So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the law on the issue has been crystallized by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and 6 applying the said principles to the present case, wherein, the age of the deceased is 39 yeaRs.he was in Govt.',
	(int) 39 => '<p> Serivce; was getting a salary of Rs.4,790/- per month; number of dependents on the deceased are six in number, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.4790/- + Rs.2395/- (50% for the future prospects) – Rs.1796/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.5389 X12X15 = Rs.9,70,020/-.',
	(int) 40 => '<p> The amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses does not call for any interference and the same is maintained at Rs.40,000/-.',
	(int) 41 => '<p> Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,10,020/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annam from the date of filing of application i.e.10.06.1998.',
	(int) 42 => '<p> The respondents including the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the said compensation.',
	(int) 43 => '<p> It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has not been paid/deposited so far.',
	(int) 44 => '<p> In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation as awarded/deposited shall be paid to the claimants in terms of the award.',
	(int) 45 => '<p> However, it is directed that in place of putting the entire amount payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 6 in fixed deposits, 50% of the amount shall be placed in fixed deposit and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in Saving Bank Accounts.',
	(int) 46 => '<p> 7 So far as the amount payable to the claimant No.1 Smt.',
	(int) 47 => '<p> Vimla is concerned, 1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of three yeaRs.1/3 amount shall be placed in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and rest 1/3 amount shall be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.',
	(int) 48 => '<p> The amount be deposited/paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months.',
	(int) 49 => '<p> No costs.',
	(int) 50 => '<p> (ARUN BHANSALI).J.',
	(int) 51 => '<p> PKS-16'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 51
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

PKS-16

Court	Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On	Jan-07-2014
Appellant	Smt.Vimla and ors
Respondent	Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors

Smt.Vimla and ors Vs. Shri Kalu Alias Kantilal and ors - Court Judgment