• Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address 4th Floor v. 1. Rameshwari Verma W/o Late Jagatram Verma Aged About 64 Years 2. Laxman Kumar
Case Details
1 / 7 2025:CGHC:39245 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 118 of 2024 • Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin 492 010 (C.G.) --- Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3 versus 1. Rameshwari Verma W/o Late Jagatram Verma Aged About 64 Years 2. Laxman Kumar Verma S/o Late Jagatram Verma Aged About 42 Years Both are R/o (1) Near Ram Mandir, Kewatpara Malaud, P.S. Dharsinwa, Harinagar Katulboard Durg. -- Present R/o (2) Ward No. 59, Near Navjot Traders, Harinagar, Katulboard Durg, District Drug, Chhattisgarh. ….applicants/ claimants 3. Mithun S/o Gopal Ram R/o (1) Village Latabod Abadi Para, P.S. Board, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Present R/o (2) House of Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Sanjay Nagar Ward, Near B.S.N.L. Office, Dantewada, P.S. And District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 4. Dhaneshwar Das Manikpuri S/o Late Anand Das Manikpuri Aged .... Years, R/o House No. 276, Maharani Ward No. 09 Geedam, P.S. Geedam, District Dantewada (C.G.) ____________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv. with Mr. ---Respondents/ Non-applicants For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Adv. with Ms. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate Mamta Patel, Advocate Sourabh Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 06/08/2025 1. Appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award 2 / 7 dated 22.09.2023 passed by Learned 12th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 681/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants-claimants therein under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 39,38,270/- as compensation fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon appellant-non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 2. The motor accident occurred on 03.01.2019 near Surana Mall, Aanwrabhata by the vehicle Bolero Pickup bearing number CG18 H 1118 (henceforth called as “offending vehicle”) driven by its driver non-applicant No. 1, rashly and negligently, and death of Shatrughan Kumar Verma (deceased) is not in dispute. The insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the liability fastened upon it, of satisfying the impugned award. 3. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the ground raised by the insurance company in this appeal as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company would submit that this appeal is filed challenging the impugned award on two grounds. Firstly, that the application filed by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of CPC to take additional documents on record ie., copy of insurance policy, documents of criminal case and the judgment passed in criminal case was not considered appropriately. However, provisions under which the application is filed appears to be erroneous. It is submitted that the judgment of criminal case was not taken into consideration wherein the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted from the charges and therefore in view of the judgment of criminal case, there could not be negligence on the part of driver which is sine quo non for maintaining an application under Section 166 3 / 7 of the Act of 1988. He also submits that on the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was possessed with valid and effective driving licence as the offending vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle for which an endorsement in the licence is required authorizing the person to drive transport vehicle, whereas the respondent No. 3- driver was having the licence authorizing him to drive Light Motor Vehicle, Motor cycle with gear. The endorsement in the licence authorizing the driver of offending vehicle to drive the transport vehicle was of dated 09.03.2020 ie., after the date of accident, hence, there was breach of policy conditions. 5. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating documentary and oral evidence on record has rightly concluded that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No. 1. He also contended that according to the details of the vehicle as mentioned in the policy as Ext. D-1 gross vehicle weight is 2990 kg which is less than 7500 kg and therefore it will fall within the category of Light Motor Vehicle. He submits that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & ors., reported in (2025) 3 SCC 95, a person holding licence to drive the light motor vehicle is also authorized to drive light passenger vehicle and light goods vehicle without there being any endorsement in the licence authorizing a person to drive transport vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 3 & 4 would support the impugned award. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 4 / 7 8. So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal has not considered the judgment of criminal case in its entirety, wherein Respondent No. 3, driver of offending vehicle, was acquitted from the charges framed against him under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and the submission that as the Respondent No. 3, driver of offending vehicle was acquitted from the charges of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by Respondent No. 3 is not proved. Judgment of criminal case is placed on record as Ext. D-21. In the judgment dated 10.02.2021, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada observed that charges levelled against accused therein/ Respondent No. 3, driver, under Section 279, 304-A of IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. From the finding recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the judgment of criminal case, it is apparent that the accused therein was acquitted giving benefit of doubt. It is settled proposition of law that requirement of proof in criminal cases and the claim cases is entirely different. To prove the charges levelled in the criminal case, prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas claim cases are to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Acquittal of driver in the criminal case would not have much relevance to decide the claim case and it is to be decided on evidence, documentary and oral, available in record of claim case. 10. As the argument which is advanced by the counsel for appellant that rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle is not proved is only on the basis of judgment of criminal case, in the aforementioned discussion, it is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. 11. So far as the second submission of learned counsel for appellant that the driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence to drive the Bolero Pick up vehicle and thereby there was breach of 5 / 7 policy conditions, in the opinion of this Court, is having no force in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). In the said decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under. “60...60.1 “(i) ‘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 Section 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 of1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. 60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 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 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 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 6 / 7 licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. 12. In case of Rambha Devi (supra) also, Hon'ble Supreme Court based on discussion made therein, has concluded as under: “181. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- 181.1. A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10 (2 (d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10 (2) (e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. 181.2 The second part of Section 3 (1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2 (21) of the MV Act. 181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in theMV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. 181.4 The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.” 13. In view of the facts of the case, where the offending vehicle’s unladen weight of 2990 kgs is less than 7500 kgs and falls within the category of light goods vehicle, and above referred decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 7 / 7 Mukund Dewangan (supra) and Rambha Devi (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the driver of offending vehicle was possessed with valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 14. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal being sans merit, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge