1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Raju Singh & Others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.794/2010) DATE OF JUDGMENT : December 06, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS __________________________________________ Mr. Vinay Kothari for the appellant. BY THE COURT : Instant appeal has been filed by the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Udaipur under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act against judgment/award dated 22.05.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in Claim Case No.85/09, whereby, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7 per cent from the date of filing claim petition. Facts of the case are that on 12.10.2008, at 12.30 P.M. in the afternoon, the mother of respondent-claimants Dhanni Bai met with an accident while she was running 2 behind her buffalo on the road-side. At that time, she was hit by vehicle bearing registration No.RJ 30-GA-1165 which was driven by its driver Anwar rashly and negligently and said vehicle was registered with appellant insurance company. Therefore, claim petition was filed by respondents No.1 and 2, both sons of deceased Dhanni Bai. Learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondents held that both the claimants are major, therefore, they cannot be treated to be dependents of deceased Dhanni Bai. As such, under the head of loss of love and affection, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of both the claimants vide award dated 22.05.2010. Learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently argued that the award impugned is totally illegal, driver of the vehicle was authorized to drive light motor vehicle as per the driving licence; but, the driver of the vehicle was driving light transport vehicle instead of light motor vehicle, therefore, it is obvious that the driver of the offending vehicle was flouting the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal has 3 erroneously awarded excessive compensation which is totally unreasonable and not legally permissible under the head - loss of love and affection and huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded which is totally erroneous. Therefore, it is prayed that the award impugned may be set aside. I have perused the impugned award. In this case, the insurance company is not disputing the accident, so also, the fact of rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle has also not been disputed by the appellant. Only assertion is that the driver of the vehicle was holding licence for light motor vehicle whereas he was driving light transport vehicle. Learned Tribunal, while disagreeing with the contention of the insurance company held that as per judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 464, light motor vehicle licence holder is entitled to drive light transport vehicle also. In my opinion, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to issue No.4 is based upon sound reasons. Further, no error has been committed by the Tribunal while awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection because as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Bera Vs. Oriental 4 Insurance Company Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 88 and other judgment of this Court, reported in 2006 ACC 273, it is held that both the claimants are major, therefore, they are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection only and that amount cannot be less than no-fault liability. While giving such finding learned Tribunal has granted Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. In my opinion, while deciding issue No.3, no error has been committed by learned Tribunal because admittedly both the claimants died in the accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver Anwar and said vehicle was insured with the insurance company. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.