Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Shakeel vs Pappu Lal And Others … on 13 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:10664]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1598/2016
Shakeel S/o Shri Madari Khan, aged about 27 years, r/o
Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)
----Appellant-Claimant
Versus
1. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Ram Dev, r/o Sardarpura, Tehisl Uniyara,
District Tonk (Raj.).(Driver)
2. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Kishan Lal, r/o Kheda, Tehisl Uniyara,
District Tonk (Raj.).(Owner)
3. H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Fllor,
C-98, Sanghi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-
302 001 through Regional Manager
----Respondents-Non-claimants
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1560/2016
Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
—-Appellant-Non-claimant
Versus
1. Saeeda S/o-Sonpal, age-42 Yrs, R/o-Allapura, Tehsil-Uniyara,
District-Tonk.
2. Sonpal S/o-Eman Khan, age-42 Yrs, R/o-Allapura, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk.
3.Sakina D/o-Sonpal, age-21 Yrs, R/o-Allapura, Tehsil-Uniyara,
District-Tonk.
4. Samina D/o-Sonpal, age-19 Yrs, R/o-Allapura, Tehsil-Uniyara,
District- Tonk
5.Farmina D/o-Sonpal, age-16, Yrs
6. Sharmina D/o-Sonpal, age-13, Yrs
7. Arbaaj D/o-Sonpal, age-9 Yrs, All through Natural Guardian
their Father Sonpal S/o-Eman Khan, age-42 Yrs, R/o-Allapura,
Tehsil-Uniyara, District-Tonk
—-Respondents/Claimant
8. Pappu Lal S/o-Ramdev, R/o-Sardar-pura, Tehsil-Uniyara,
Dist.-Tonk. (Delete).
9. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 6-Floor Lila,
Buisnis Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East)-Mumbai.
…….Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1561/2016
Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:07:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10664] (2 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016]
—-Appellant-Non-claimant
Versus
1. Yasin S/o Kareem Khan, aged about 24 years, R/o Allapura,
Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
…….Respondent/Claimant
2. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Ram Dev, r/o Sardarpura, Tehisl Uniyara,
District Tonk (Raj.).
3.H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 6- Floor Lila,
Buisnis Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East)-Mumbai.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1581/2016
Kallu Khan S/o Shri Hasan Khan, aged about 52 years, r/o
Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)
—-Appellant-Claimant
Versus
1. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Ram Dev, r/o Sardarpura, Tehisl Uniyara,
District Tonk (Raj.). (Driver)
2. Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
3. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 3rd Floor, C-
98,- Sanghi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur-
302001 through Regional Manager
—-Respondents/Non-claimants
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1582/2016
1. Smt. Saida wife of Shri Sonpal, aged 47 years
2. Sonpal son of Shri Eman Khan, aged 50 years
3. Kum. Sakina daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 26 years
4. Kum. Sameena daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 24 years
5. Kum. Farmina daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 22 years
6. Kum. Sharmina daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 18 years
7. Kum. Arbaj daughter of Shri Sonpal, aged 14 years minor
through her natural guardian and father Shri Sonpal
All residents of Allapura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)
—-Appellant/Claimants
Versus
1. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Ram Dev, r/o Sardarpura, Tehisl Uniyara,
District Tonk (Raj.). (Driver)
2. Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
3. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 3rd Floor, C-
98,- Sanghi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur-
302001 through Regional Manager
—-Respondents/ Non-claimants
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:07:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10664] (3 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016]
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1583/2016
Yasin S/o Kareem Khan, aged about 24 years, R/o Allapura,
Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
—-Appellant-Claimant
Versus
1. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Ram Dev, r/o Sardarpura, Tehisl Uniyara,
District Tonk (Raj.). (Driver)
2. Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
3. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 3rd Floor, C-
98,- Sanghi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur-
302001 through Regional Manager
—-Respondents-Non-claimants
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1590/2016
Mohan Lal S/o-Kishan Lal, Age-45 Yrs, R/o-Kheda, Tehsil-
Uniyara, District-Tonk. (Owner)
—-Appellant-Non-claimant
Versus
1. Shakil S/o Madari Khan, aged about 22 years, r/o Allapura,
Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
……….Respondent/Claimant
2. Pappu Lal S/o Shri Ram Dev, r/o Sardarpura, Tehisl Uniyara,
District Tonk (Raj.). (Driver)
3. H.D.F.C. E.R.G.O. General Insurance Company, 6-Floor Lila,
Buisnis Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East)-Mumbai.
—-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur (For claimant)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal with
Mr. Prijwal Kumar (For Insurance
Company)
Mr. Atul Kumar Jain (Appellant in
CMA No. 1560/2016, 1561/2016 &
1590/2016 – for Owner of vehicle)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
13/03/2026
1. Since all the appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence
they are being considered and decided together by this common
Judgment.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:07:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10664] (4 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016]
2. These appeals challenge the judgment and award dated
20.11.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tonk, whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants were
partly allowed and compensation was awarded in favour of the
claimants as under:-
S/N MAC Case No. (Name of Claimant) Amount
1. 665/2010 (Smt Saida & Ors.) Rs.4,70,000/-
2. 36/2011 (Shakeel) Rs.3,46,995/-
3. 37/2011(Kallu Khan) Rs.20,000/-
4. 38/2011(Yasin) Rs.1,02,337/-
2.1 Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance
Company was exonerated from its liability to pay the
compensation.
2.2 Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the
claimants have preferred appeal Nos. 1598/2016, 1581/2016,
1582/2016, 1583/2016 respectively, while the registered owner of
the vehicle has preferred appeal Nos. 1560/2016, 1561/2016 and
1590/2016.
3. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the claim petition, are
that on 24.02.2010, Asraj and other persons were going by Truck
No. RJ-26-GA-1084, towards Tonk, carrying buffaloes and calves.
The truck was being driven by the respondent No.1, in a rash and
negligent manner, as a result, the truck overturned. Due to which
Asraj died on the spot and the other persons sustained injuries.
4. The claimants, thereafter, filed claim petitions before the
learned Tribunal, which were partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
However, the Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability
on the grounds that:-
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:07:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10664] (5 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016]i. the deceased and injured persons were travelling in a
goods vehicle, in which their risk was not covered under the
insurance policy;
ii. the driving license of respondent No.1 was not valid at
the time of accident; and
iii. the vehicle was allegedly being operated without a valid
permit.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2017) 14 SCC
663 and M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.841/2018) decided
on 06.11.2024, has propounded that a driver holding license for
‘LMV’ class is also entitled to drive a ‘Light Transport Vehicle’
without requiring any additional authorization for the same,
therefore, the finding of learned Tribunal regarding this issue is
erroneous.
5.1 Learned counsel has also submitted that by way of an
application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, the registered
owner has placed on record a valid permit to indicate that they
were authorized to operate the offending vehicle at the time of
occurrence of accident and therefore, under these circumstances,
the registered owner of the vehicle cannot be held to pay
compensation to the claimants.
5.2 The last submission of learned counsel for the appellants is
that the Tribunal erred in omitting to grant compensation in
accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:07:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10664] (6 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016]
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and
submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just,
fair and proper and does not require interference of this Court.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering that the permit has now been placed on record by way
of an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC on behalf of
the registered owner, this Court is of the view that the matter
requires re-consideration by the Tribunal in order to adjudicate
the genuineness of the permit issued by the concerned transport
authority. Parties shall be entitled to raise all the above issues
before the learned Tribunal.
8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award
dated 20.11.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be
set aside qua the issue Nos.3 and 4 and the matter is remanded
back to the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is expected
to decide the said issues afresh, as expeditiously as possible,
strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six
months from the date of appearance of the parties before it.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on
13.04.2026 and the Tribunal is directed to decide the claim
petitions afresh, on the aforesaid issues after affording an
opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, in accordance
with law.
10. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order
alongwith the record, to the learned Tribunal forthwith.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:07:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10664] (7 of 7) [CMA-1598/2016]
11. Registry is further directed to return the original permit
document filed alongwith application under Order XLI Rule 27 of
CPC, to the learned counsel for the appellant after retaining the
photocopy of the same.
13. With the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed of.
14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J
TN/32-38
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:07:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:31:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
