Paras Kumar S/o Panchu Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Madouda Station Ward v. 1 - Babu Lal S/o Heera Lal Aged About 45 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.07 18:32:04 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:39320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1727 of 2018 Paras Kumar S/o Panchu Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Madouda Station Ward Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Babu Lal S/o Heera Lal Aged About 45 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Kohlatola, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lalita W/o Babu Lal Lodhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kohlatola, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Moti Ram Janghel S/o Bahoran Ram Janghel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mahratola, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Near Gurudwara, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 06.08.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 26.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.21/2011 whereby learned 2 Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 19.12.2010 at about 03:05 PM, an accident occurred on the road between Parpodi and Kuthlu under Police Station Saja, District Durg. The deceased, Sukhraji, was travelling from his village Kohalatola to Parpodi on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08/N/4792. At the same time, a Tata DI vehicle bearing registration No. CG- 07/C/2375 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), driven by non-applicant No. 1 (driver) in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from the opposite direction and collided with the motorcycle, resulting in the death of Sukhraji on the spot. 3. The claimants being parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition pleading therein that the deceased was unmarried and the sole earning member of the family. He worked as a tractor driver for one Dilip Chandel and earned approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month, including salary and allowances. Additionally, he earned about Rs. 1,00,000/- annually through agricultural activities. It is alleged that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the non-applicants, and hence, compensation is sought to be recovered from them jointly and severally. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 while denying the averments made in the claim application have filed a counter-version stating that the 3 offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident. They contended that the case has been falsely registered against non- applicant No. 1 by Police Station Saja and the claimants have exaggerated the facts with the intention of securing undue compensation. It was further submitted that on the date of the alleged incident, the said vehicle was duly insured with non- applicant No. 3 (Insurance Company), and non-applicant No. 1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence. 5. Non-applicant No. 3, the Insurance Company, has also refuted the claim and filed a separate counter denying any liability. It has been contended that the deceased did not die in an accident involving the offending vehicle and that he was riding a motorcycle along with two other persons. The owner of the said motorcycle has not been impleaded as a party, rendering the claim application defective and not maintainable. Further, it is alleged that non- applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, the vehicle’s documents were not in order, and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application filed by the claimants and awarded Rs.1,84,500/- as compensation and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the owner of offending vehicle submits that 4 the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive “Light Motor Vehicle” and total unladen weight of offending vehicle was less than 7500 kgs. He further submits that in view of Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act, offending vehicle being less than 7500 kgs in weight comes under the category of “Light Motor Vehicle”, for which, driver is having the driving licence, therefore, conclusion of Claims Tribunal that driver did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle is erroneous. It is contented that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in recording a finding that on the date of accident, there was violation of breach of conditions of the insurance policy and the said finding is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal be allowed and Insurance Company should be held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi and others, (2025) 3 SCC 95, to buttress his submissions. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal has justified in recording a finding that there was breach of conditions of insurance policy due to driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive 5 the offending vehicle and rightly exonerated the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation, which needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case minutely. 10. Purushottam Singh Kshatriya appeared as a witness on behalf of non-applicant No. 3 – National Insurance Company Limited, who is an official of the Insurance Company and deposed regarding the insurance and licence particulars of the offending vehicle involved in the accident, i.e., offending vehicle. In his examination- in-chief, he stated that he had verified the details of the driving licence of the driver, non-applicant No.1, Motiram, from the concerned licensing authority. He produced a computerized record of the driving licence as Exhibit D/3, which clearly reflects that the driver possessed a Light Motor Vehicle (‘LMV’) licence only on the date of the accident i.e. 19.12.2010, and did not have authorization to drive a transport or goods vehicle at that time. He clarified that the endorsement for transport vehicle was issued later, i.e., on 23.01.2012, which was after the accident date. He also produced the certified copy of the insurance policy (Exhibit D.4), according to which the offending vehicle was insured as a commercial goods vehicle for the period 19.08.2010 to 18.08.2011. Therefore, on the date of the accident, the vehicle was under a valid insurance policy, but it was strictly meant for 6 carrying goods and not for personal or agricultural use as claimed by the owner. He emphasized that when a vehicle is insured for commercial purposes, especially as a public goods carrier, it can only be driven by a person holding a valid transport vehicle licence. 11. In cross-examination, Purushottam Singh maintained the authenticity of the computerized DL record and insurance documents. He clarified that the Exhibit D/2 (licence particulars) was retrieved from the company records and Exhibit D/3 (computerized document) matched with it, thereby confirming its reliability. He further stated that these documents were procured from the relevant licensing authority and formed part of the regular course of business maintained by the Insurance Company for claim verification. 12. The issue with respect to persons having a licence authorizing to drive Light Motor Vehicle, but on the date of accident found driving the commercial vehicle, but of the same category, has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and held as under : “59. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate 7 endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post- amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28-03-2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in Section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. 60. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: 60.1. ‘'Light motor vehicle'’ as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with 8 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54 of 1994. 60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28-03-2001 in the form. 60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11- 1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in Section 10(2)(e), “medium passenger motor vehicle” in Section 10(2)(f), “heavy goods vehicle” in Section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger 9 motor vehicle” in Section 10(2)(h), with expression “transport vehicle” as substituted in Section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Section 10(2)(d) and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. 60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.” 13. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra), it is quite vivid that the offending vehicle, falls under the category of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) as per its unladen weight, and was being driven by non-applicant No.1, Motiram, who held a valid LMV driving license on the date of the accident i.e., 19.12.2010. 14. Applying the ratio of the above decision to the present case, it is evident that since the vehicle in question was a light goods 10 vehicle with unladen weight less than 7500 kgs., and the driver possessed a valid LMV license, he was duly authorized to drive the said vehicle. Therefore, no breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy can be attributed to the insured or the driver. 15. As such, the finding of the Claims Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from liability on the ground of invalid licence is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle (non-applicant No.2) deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 16. The National Insurance Company Limited is held liable to indemnify the owner and to satisfy the award of compensation passed in favour of the claimants. 17. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge