MAA SAI SCHOOL Vs. SHANTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Misc. Appeal No.1545/2015 as well as Cross Objection (Civil) No.27/2018, have been filed challenging the impugned judgment and award dtd. 2/6/2015 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal ['learned Tribunal'], Chittorgarh in Misc. Claim Case No.287/2009 whereby, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants/cross-objectors and awarded Rs.1,75,000.00 along with interest @ 9% per annum while fastening the liability to pay the compensation upon the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question, jointly and severally.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 28/10/2008 at around 1:30 PM, when one Sakshi was playing outside her house, a bus of Maa Sai School bearing registration No.RJ-09-P-2394 driven by one Dinesh in a rash and negligent manner, turned the wheel of the bus over Sakshi due to which she received grievous and fatal injuries and resultantly, she died. A claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants/cross-objectors seeking compensation on account of death of Sakshi, which came to be partly allowed vide impugned judgment and award dtd. 2/6/2015 and thus, being aggrieved of the same, the appellant-Owner has preferred the present misc. appeal and the cross-objections has been filed by the claimants/cross-objectors seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-owner submits that the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award dtd. 2/6/2015 has held that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid Driving License to drive the said vehicle but was having the license to drive Light Motor Vehicles ['LMV'] only. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.841 of 2018] decided on 6/11/2024 has upheld the decision rendered in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd." [2017 14 SCC 663] and thus, the driver of the vehicle in question which is registered as goods vehicle, was not required to have transport vehicle license. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-