National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Patwari v. Jai Singh

3. Shankar Singh s/o Shri Hem Singh Rawat, r/o Kotaj, P.S. Mangliyavas, District Ajmer. (Driver Vehicle No. R.J.E.1002)

4. Pukhraj Chouhan S/o Shri Shiv Narain Mali, R/o 240/28, Purani Dhannadi, Balupura Road, Ajmer (Owner of the Vehicle) ---Performa-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore (for respondent No.4 - Owner of the vehicle) Mr. Abhishek Pareek (for respondent Nos.1 & 2 - Claimants) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA 15/04/2026 Judgment

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company (for short 'appellant') under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 07.10.2003, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.601/1999, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants (for short ‘claimants’) was partly allowed. [2026:RJ-JP:15612] (2 of 6) [CMA-488/2004]

The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal stating therein that on 29.01.1999, when claimants' son namely Ajay (since deceased) was coming from field towards Hakola Ka Badiya, a truck bearing Registration No. R.J.E.-1002, being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner, ran over Ajay, as a result of which he died on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle i.e. truck was under the ownership of respondent No.4 and was insured with the appellant.

The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sole grievance of the appellant is that at the time of accident, the Respondent No.3 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle was only having a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle whereas, the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle, and therefore he was not authorized to drive the same at time of accident. It is further submitted that under these circumstances, the appellant can’t be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

5.1 He also submits that the said objection was raised by the appellant before the learned Tribunal as well, however, the learned Tribunal without discussing the fact of the case, simply decided objection under the Issue No.4 against the appellant by recording that in a case where the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid driving license, the insurance company can still be held liable to pay [2026:RJ-JP:15612] (3 of 6) [CMA-488/2004] compensation to the claimant and then it can be asked to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. He, therefore, prays to quash and set aside the finding on Issue No.4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and submits that the respondent No.3 was having a valid driving license to drive a light motor vehicle, which was produced before the learned Tribunal as Exhibit-5. It is further submitted that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle was also produced as Exhibit-4, which reflects that the offending vehicle was a light transport vehicle and therefore, the respondent No.3 was authorized to drive the same. He also submits that the learned Tribunal was justified in holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants and prays to dismiss the present appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, as also the impugned judgment and award.

From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is revealed that the appellant raised an objection that the respondent No.3 was not holding a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal, however, while deciding the Issue No.4, which also pertains to the said objection raised by the appellant, did not discuss the facts of the case and simply decided the said issue against the appellant while holding a general discussion that even in the cases where driver of a vehicle does not have a driving license, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant but later on it can recover the same from the owner.

It is apparent that the learned Tribunal just narrated a legal principle with reference to some case law but no discussion was made on the facts of the case as to whether the respondent No.3 was [2026:RJ-JP:15612] (4 of 6) [CMA-488/2004] authorized to drive the offending vehicle on the basis of driving license he was holding at the time of accident. There is a complete lack of discussion and reasoning to decide the said issue against the appellant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the approach of the learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.4 cannot be legally sustained.

Ordinarily, this Court would have remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide the said issue afresh, however, since, the matter pertains to the accident of year 1999, this Court deems it proper to decide the same on the basis of the material available on record.

From the record, it is evident that the claimants produced the license of respondent No.3 as Exhibit-5 which was for driving a light motor vehicle and it was valid for a period commencing from

21.01.1998 till 20.01.2018. The claimants also produced the registration certificate of the offending vehicle (Exhibit-4) which also reflects that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 6,000 Kg. The appellant did not produce any evidence in rebuttal of the aforesaid documents.

11.1 Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, defines the term ‘light motor vehicle’, which reads as under:- “(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms;”

11.2 A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that a transport vehicle of which the unladen weight does not exceed 7,500 Kg would fall within the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’.

11.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, while dealing with the definition of light motor vehicle held that a person holding license of light motor vehicle can also drive light [2026:RJ-JP:15612] (5 of 6) [CMA-488/2004] transport vehicle. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as under:- “17. The definition of "light motor vehicle" makes it clear that for a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or roadroller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kg. "Gross vehicle weight" has been defined in Section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or roadroller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kg as defined in section 2(48) of the Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54 of 1994 in the provisions contained in Sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle.

The definition of "light motor vehicle" has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that “light motor vehicle” is also a "transport vehicle", the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of Section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a "transport vehicle" must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorisation to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, roadroller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg.

The insertion of “transport vehicle” category in section 10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of "gross vehicle weight" or "unladen weight" for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12,000 kg. “Medium goods vehicle” shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas “medium passenger motor vehicle” means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle.

The State Government has to maintain a register of motor vehicles under Rule 75 as provided in Form 41 which includes gross vehicle weight, unladen weight, etc. The Central Government has the power to frame rules under Section 27, inter alia, regarding minimum qualification, forms, and contents of the licences, etc. [2026:RJ-JP:15612] (6 of 6) [CMA-488/2004] Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the definition of “light motor vehicle” under Section 2(21) of the Act includes transport vehicle of the class and weight defined therein. The transport vehicle or omnibus would be light motor vehicle, gross vehicle weight of which, and also a motor car or tractor or roadroller, unladen weight of which, does not exceed 7500 kg, and can be driven by holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle and no separate endorsement is required to drive such transport vehicle.” (emphasis supplied)

11.4 In the instant case, the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 6,000 Kg, hence, despite the same being a transport vehicle, by virtue of the provisions contained under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it would be considered as ‘light motor vehicle’. Moreover, as the respondent No.3 was holding a valid driving license for a ‘light motor vehicle’, therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is appropriate to conclude that the respondent No.3 was authorized to drive the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the objection raised by the appellant is rejected.

Stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. TN/41 (SANDEEP TANEJA),J