Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Bharat Singh And Ors vs Gordhan Bai And Ors on 23 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:4904]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3537/2008
1. Bharat Singh
2. Jaiprakash
Both are sons of Shri Birbal Ram, Residents of Chatarpura,
Tan. Durana, Police Station Mandawa, Tehsil and District
Jhunjhunu. (Rajasthan) [Owner of Tractor No. RJ18 R 5004]
----Appellants/Non-Claimants
Versus
1. Gordhan Bhai S/o Narsi Bhai
2. Smt. Labhu Bahin W/o Gordhan Bhai
3. Jalpa D/o Gordhan Bhai, aged about 14 years (minor)
through her father Shri Gordhan Bhai
All are residents of Khingarka, Tehsil Thol, District Jamnagar
(Gujarat), presently R/o M/s Hariom Botling, Plot No. G-1/80B,
RICCO, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
----Respondents/Claimants
4. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. m through its Branch
Manager, Branch Office at Station Road, Jhunjhunu
(Rajasthan)(Insurance Company Tractor No. RJ 18 R 5004)
—-Respondent/Non-Claimant
5. Hariram, S/o Dhaver Ram, Resident of Deswala, Police
Station Kuchera, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagore (Driver
Tractor No. RJ 18 R 5004)
—-Performa Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Raj for
Mr. Praveen Balwada
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Gupta, for respondent No.4
Mr. Prijwal Kumar for
Mr. Virendra Agarwal.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (2 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 02.02.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 02.02.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only operative
Full
part is pronounced
4. Date of pronouncement 23.02.2026
1. The appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act of 1988’ for short), whereby they have made a
challenge to the judgment and award dated 01.06.2007 passed
by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu in
Claim Case No. 79/2007 by which an award of Rs. 2,36,000/-
was passed in favour of the respondent-claimants along with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 06.02.2006.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Aditya Raj
submitted that the appellants are the driver and the owner of
the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident, resulting in the
death of a boy named Bhavesh and injuries to another person
namely Vinay Kumar.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has wrongly passed the impugned judgment dated
01.06.2007 and erroneously held the appellants responsible and
liable to pay the awarded claim. The present appeal is in respect
of the claim application bearing No.79/2007 filed by the parents
and the sister of the deceased Bhavesh.
4. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellants were
not driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, rather, it
was the deceased and his friend who were driving their two
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (3 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]
wheeler, i.e. a scooter bearing No. RJ18-M-8828 in a rash and
negligent manner, due to which they suffered injuries and
Bhavesh died.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned
Tribunal while deciding the claim application No. 79/2007 in
respect of the deceased Bhavesh, passed the following award.
1- fofo/k flfoy eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk nkok izdj.k la[;k 79@07
1- izkFkhZx.k la[;k 1 o 2 foi{khx.k 1 ls 3 la;qDr o i`Fkd :i ls
dqy izfrdj jkf’k 236000@& :i;s ¼ftlesa ls muds }kjk iwoZ esa izkIr
vUrfje izfrdj jkf’k 50000@& :i;s lek;ksftr djus ds i’pkr~½
‘ks”k jkf’k 186000@& izkIr e; C;kt djsxasA
2- foi{khx.k la[;k 1 ls 3 mDr jkf’k 186000@& :i;s o C;kt dk
bl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds uke ls dsoy [kkrk esa tek gksus okyk
pSd@MªkQ~V ,d ekg ds Hkhrj izsf”kr djsaxsA
3- mDr jkf’k 186000@& :i;s ij vkosnu fnukad 06-02-2006 ls
rkjh[k iapkV rd 8 izfr’kr C;kt ns; gksxkA iapkV dh frFkh ls ,d
ekg ds Hkhrj jkf’k C;kt vnk ugha djkus ij mDr C;kt vnk;xh rd
tkjh jgsxkA
4- jde tek gksus ij izkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds gd esa 100000@& :i;s
dh lkof/k tek [kkrs esa 3 o”kZ ds fy, tek gksxhA ftldk C;kt
ifjiDork frFkh dks ns; gksxkA ‘ks”k jkf’k 86000@& :i;s o vftZr
C;kt izkFkhZx.k 1 o 2 ds la;qDr cpr [kkrs esa fn;k tk;sxkA
5- foi{kh la[;k 3 chekdEiuh }kjk vnk dh xbZ jkf’k chek/kkjh ls
btjk; U;k;ky; esa olwy djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA
6- izkFkhZx.k dk ‘ks”k jkf’k dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i{kdkjku-
viuk viuk [kpkZ ogu djsxasA
6. Learned counsel further submitted that as they had a valid
and proper driving licence and an insurance policy, therefore, it
is the insurance company which was liable and the learned
Tribunal should have directed the insurance company to pay the
claim amount, as awarded, to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned
Tribunal, while deciding the claim petition, framed as many as 5
issues, which read as under:
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (4 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 31-8-2006 dks fuEufyf[kr
fook|d l`ftr fd;s x;s%&
1- vk;k iz’uxr okgu la[;k VªsDVj uEcj vkj-ts- 18 vkj 5004 ds
pkyd foi{kh la[;k ,d gjhjke ds }kjk fnukad 27-10-2005 dks vke
lM+d >qa>quw okjhliqjk ij mDr okgu dks mis{kk@mrkoysiu ls
pykdj dh xbZ nq?kZVuk esa izR;{k ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkos’k HkkbZ dh nq?kZVuk
esa e`R;q gks xbZ\
2- vk;k mDr okgu pkyd rc mDr okgu Lokeh foi{kh la[;k nks ds
fu;kstu esa gksdj mlh ds fgrkFkZ ,oa ykHkkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk] tks
okgu fof/kd o izHkkoh :i ls chfer Fkk\
3- vk;k foi{kh la[;k 3 chek dEiuh }kjk vius fyf[kr dFku dh
izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo’ks”k dFku ds en~nsutj chek dEiuh vius
nkf;Ro ls eqDr gks ldrh gS ugha rks bldk D;k izHkko gS\
4- vk;k nkosnkj vius nkos@nkok esa vafdr iz’uxr jkf’k o ml ij
C;kt ;k vU; dksbZ U;k; lEer jkf’k ik ldrk gS] ;fn gkW rks
dkSu&dkSu nkosnkj fdruh fdruh jkf’k] fdl fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl
izdkj ls ik ldrs gS rFkk fdl rjg lank; fd;k tkosxk\
5- vuqrks”k
8. Learned counsel further submitted that although appellants
have challenged the complete award as passed by the learned
Tribunal however, their specific challenge is in respect of findings
as recorded in Issue No.3, by which the appellants have been
held liable to bear the claim amount and the insurance company
was held eligible to recover the amount from the appellants, i.e.,
the owner and driver of the vehicle. The finding in respect of the
Issue No.3, being relevant, is reproduced as under:-
fookn fcUnq la[;k & 3
foi{kh la[;k & 1 ds ikl pkyku vuqKfIr izn’kZ 13 gS] blds
vuqlkj okgu pkyd gfjjke ds ikl gYdk eksVj;ku ds fy, pykus
dk ykbZlsUl gSA VªsDVj dk otu iaftdj.k izek.k i= esa vafdr ugha
gSA /kkjk 2¼16½ ds vuqlkj 12000 fdyksxzke ls de otu gksus ls rFkk
Hkkjh eky okgd ugha gS rFkk /kkjk 2¼21½ esa VªsDVj ;fn 7500 fdyksxzke
dk gks rks gYdk eksVj okgu gh gS rFkk /kkjk 2¼23½ esa e/;e Hkkj okgd
esa gSA /kkjk 2¼44½ esa VªsDVj dh ifjHkk”kk gSA ftlds vuqlkj og dksbZ
yksM [khpus ds fy, u gks rFkk /kkjk 2¼47½ esa ugha rks og lkoZtfud
okgu gSA u gh eky okgd gSA uk gh futh lsok okgd gSA futh(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (5 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]lsokokgd /kkjk 2¼33½ okgu tks 6 ls T;knk vkneh;ksa dks ;k=h ds :i
esa <ksrk gksA vr% VsDVj ds fy, Lo;a gYdk eksVj okgu gSA ;g Lo-
hd`r fLFkfr gS fd VªsDVj esa Vªksyh esa yxh gqbZ Fkh vr% og eksVj;ku
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼47½ ds vuqlkj lkoZtfud okgu gS vr% pkyd
ds ikl ,y-Vh0oh- dk ykbZlsUl gksuk pkfg, tks mlds ikl ugha FkkA
chek dEiuh us vius rdksZa ds lEcU/k esa uVojflag cuke LVsV vkQ
dukVZdk ,-lh-ts- 2006 ist 9 is’k dh gS ftlesa VªsDVj dh ifjHkk”kk nh
xbZ gSA VªsDVj dk chek fdlku isdst chek Fkk ftlesa oks Lo;a dh d`f”k
dk;Z ds mi;ksx gsrq rks mldk vuq”kakfxd iz;ksx gsrq dke es ys ldrk
FkkA e`rd Hkkos’k HkkbZ dh e`R;q r`rh; i{k ds :i esa ugha gqbZA vr%
chekdEiuh izfrdj nsxh ijUrq og chek/kkjh ls btjk; U;k;ky; esa
mDr jkf’k olwy dj ldrh gSA
9. On the basis of the impugned findings, as recorded in
respect of Issue No.3 by the learned Tribunal, the appellants
were held liable to bear the claim amount as awarded. Learned
counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal has recorded
a finding that the tractor is a light motor vehicle however, as a
trolley was attached to it, it was treated as a public vehicle in
terms of Section 2(7) of the Act of 1988 and because the driver
did not have a valid LTV license, therefore, insurance company is
not liable in terms of the law as settled in the case of Natwar
Singh Vs. State of Karnataka ACJ 2006 SC 9. Learned
counsel further submitted that the issue in respect of vehicles
weighing less than 7500 Kg. and above, and their liability
including the licensing conditions, was examined by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. and connected
appeals decided by judgment dated 06.11.2024 reported in
(2025) 3 SCC 95. Learned counsel further submitted that in
the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court examined the issue as to
whether “a person holding license for a light motor vehi-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (6 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]
cle class can drive a transport vehicle without a specific
endorsement, provided the gross vehicle weight of the
vehicle does not exceed 7500 Kg”. Learned counsel further
submitted that in the above case, the Hon’ble Apex Court
framed the following issues for adjudication:-
“11. From the above submissions, the following specific
issues fall for our consideration:
(i) Whether a driver holding an LMV license (for vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs.) as per
Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, can
operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific
authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act,
specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class;
(ii) Whether the second part of Section 3(1) which
emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a
‘Transport Vehicle’ overrides the definition of LMV in
Section 2(21) of MV Act? Is the definition of LMV
contained in Section 2(21) of MV Act unrelated to the
licensing framework under the MV Act and the MV Rules;
(iii) Whether the additional eligibility criteria prescribed in
the MV Act and MV Rules for ‘transport vehicles’ would
apply to those who are desirous of driving vehicles
weighing below 7,500 kgs and have obtained a license for
LMV class under Section 10(2)(d) of the MV Act;
(iv) What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue
of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 which substituted four
classes under clauses (e) to (h) in Section 10 with a single
class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 10(2)(e)?”
The relevant paragraph of the judgment, wherein the Court
has recorded the conclusion while answering the reference, is
reproduced as under:-
“125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the
MV Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for
a separate endorsement for operating a ‘Transport
Vehicle’, if a driver already holds a LMV license. We
must however clarify that the exceptions carved out by(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (7 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and
e-rickshaws, or vehicles carrying hazardous goods, will
remain unaffected by the decision of this Court.
126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the
definition of LMV under Section 2(21) of the MV Act
explicitly provides what a ‘Transport Vehicle’ ‘means’.
This Court must ensure that neither provision i.e. the
definition under Section 2(21) or the second part
of Section 3(1) which concerns the necessity for a
driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ is reduced to a
dead letter of law. Therefore, the emphasis on
‘Transport Vehicle’ in the licensing scheme has to be
understood only in the context of the ‘medium’ and
‘heavy’ vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns
with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section
10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure.
127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the
broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety
and ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims
of road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier
discussed at length. An authoritative pronouncement by
this Court would prevent insurance companies from
taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for
compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing
below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving
license of a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class.
128. In an era where autonomous or driver-less
vehicles are no longer tales of science fiction and
app-based passenger platforms are a modern reality,
the licensing regime cannot remain static. The
amendments that have been carried out by the Indian
legislature may not have dealt with all possible
concerns. As we were informed by the Learned
Attorney General that a legislative exercise is
underway, we hope that a comprehensive amendment
to address the statutory lacunae will be made with
necessary corrective measures.
129. Just to flag one concern, the legislature through
the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2)(e) in order to
introduce ‘transport vehicle’ as a separate class could
not have intended to merge light motor vehicle (which
continued as a distinct class) along with medium, and
heavy vehicles into a single class. Else, it would give
rise to a situation in which Sri (our hypothetical
character), wanting to participate in the cycling sport,
is put through the rigorous training relevant only for a
multisport like Triathlon, which requires a much higher
degree of endurance and athleticism. The effort
therefore should be to ensure that the statute remains
practical and workable.
130. Now harking back to the primary issue and
noticing that the core driving skills (as en unciated in
the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered
by all drivers are universal – regardless of whether
the vehicle falls into “Transport” or “Non-Trans-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (8 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]port” category, it is the considered opinion of this
Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within
7,500 kg – the quintessential common man’s driver
Sri, with LMV license, can also drive a “Transport
Vehicle”. We are able to reach such a conclusion as
none of the parties in this case has produced any
empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving
licence holder, driving a ‘Transport Vehicle’, is a
significant cause for road accidents in India. The
additional eligibility criteria as specified in MV
Act and MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will
apply only to such vehicle (‘medium goods vehicle’,
‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’
and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’), whose gross
weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present interpreta-
tion on how the licensing regime is to operate for
drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to
compromise the road safety concerns. This will also
effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers
operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum
hours behind the wheels), in legally operating
“Transport vehicles” (below 7,500 Kg), with their
LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive
responsibly and should have no occasion to be
called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in
the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels.
Such harmonious interpretation will substantially
address the vexed question of law before this
Court.
131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are
as under:-
(I) 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.
(II) 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.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (9 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]
(III) The additional eligibility criteria
specified in the MV 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’.
(IV) 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.”
10. In terms of the conclusion as recorded by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Co. (supra), the learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that as the appellant driver was driving a light motor
vehicle and was holding a valid license, therefore, in terms of
the above law, the liability could not be fastened upon him
rather, it should have been completely imposed upon the
insurance company in terms of the conditions of the policy.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2001(8)SCC 56, examined the
issue as to whether the insurance company is liable to
compensate where the policy was taken for the tractor and the
trolley, as attached, was used for carriage of goods. The
relevant paragraph of the Nagashetty (supra) judgment is
reproduced as under:-
10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr.
S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had
a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (10 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]
Undoubtedly under Section 10 a licence is granted to
drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The
question is whether merely because a trailer was
attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for
carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes
ineffective. In the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to
be accepted then every time an owner of a private
car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle,
attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car
and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle
would become a transport vehicle and the owner
would be deemed to have no licence to drive that
vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely
because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a
motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or
motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or
motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a
person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or
a motor vehicle he continues to have a valid licence
to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer
is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In
other words a person having a valid driven licence to
drive a particular category of vehicle does not
become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because
a trailer is added to that vehicle.
11. In this case we find that the Insurance Company,
when issuing the Insurance Policy, had also so
understood. The Insurance Policy has been issued for
a tractor. In this Insurance Policy an additional
premium of Rs. 12/- has been taken for trailer.
Therefore the Insurance Policy covers not just the
tractor but also a trailer attached to the tractor. The
Insurance Policy provides as follows for the “persons
or classes of persons entitled to drive”:-
“Persons or classes of persons entitled to
drive- Any person including insured provided
that the person driving holds an effective
driving licence at the time of the accident
and is not disqualified from holding or
obtaining such a licence.
Provided also that the person holding an
effective learner’s licence may also drive the
vehicle when not used for the transport of(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (11 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]goods at the time of the accident and that
such a person satisfied the requirement of
Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989, limitations as to use”
12. The policy is for a tractor. The “effective driving
licence” is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a
learner driving the tractor when used for transporting
goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that
the tractor could be used for carriage of gods. The
tractor by itself cold not carry goods. The goods
would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is
whey the extra premium for trailer. The restriction
placed on a person holding learner’s licence i.e. not to
drive when goods are being carried is not there for a
permanent licence holder. Thus a permanent licence
holder having a effective/valid licence to drive a
tractor can drive oven when the tractor is used for
carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the
High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion
that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a
tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor
if a trailer was attached to it
11. In terms of the above law, as laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Nagashetty (supra) the appellants, who
are owner and driver of the tractor, having a valid insurance
policy and license to drive, who did not cause any accident, are
not liable to compensate or bear the awarded claim amount, as
wrongly imposed upon them by the learned Tribunal, which is
clearly contrary to the law as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in terms of the above two judgments.
12. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel prayed
that the present appeal be allowed and the award passed by the
learned Tribunal be modified and it be held that only the
insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants by
paying the compensation amount as ordered by the learned
Tribunal in the Claim Case No. 79/2007.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (12 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
insurance company Mr. J.P. Gupta assisted by Mr. Yashwardhan
Gupta, strongly opposed the submissions. Learned counsel
contended that the appellants are the owner and driver of the
tractor who caused the accident, due to which the deceased
Bhavesh Bhai died and the other person suffered injuries. As far
as the injured person is concerned, he was awarded a sum of
Rs. 8000/- while allowing Claim Application No.80/2007 by the
learned Tribunal against which though, the appeal was filed for
enhancement, however the same was dismissed as not
maintainable in view of the meagre amount of Rs. 8000/-. The
present appeal is against award passed in the Claim Application
No. 79/2007.
14. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has not committed any mistake while imposing the
liability upon the owner and the driver of the vehicle and
therefore, the present appeal deserves no interference and
same deserves to be dismissed by the Court.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
16. From the perusal of the record of the case and award
dated 01.06.2007, this Court noted that the learned Tribunal
passed the impugned award dated 01.06.2007, in respect of an
unfortunate incident which occurred on 27.10.2005, when the
deceased Bhavesh Bhai alongwith his friend Vinay Kumar were
going on their scooter bearing registration No. RJ-18-M-8828
and met with an accident with the tractor of which the
appellants herein are owner and driver. The learned Tribunal
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (13 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]
recorded the specific findings that the accident occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle.
17. The findings of negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal
have attained finality, as the same have not been questioned by
the insurance company. The present appeal is by the owner and
driver of the vehicle who are aggrieved by the fastening of the
compensation liability upon them by the learned Tribunal and
the liberty granted to the insurance company to recover the
same from them in regard to the liability of the appellants
herein.
18. This Court considered the fact that the learned Tribunal, on
the basis of the finding as recorded while deciding the Issue
No.3, which was framed in regard to the liability of the insurance
company for the unfortunate accident, in which the deceased
died. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the judgment passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Natwar Singh Vs.
State of Karnataka (supra), held that the insurance company
is not liable and the appellants are liable.
19. I have considered the judgment as cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of ‘M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.’
(supra), wherein the Hon’ble Court specifically examined the
issue of liability of a light motor vehicle with respect to the
weight attached to it and by answering the five issues as framed
in the case, the Hon’ble Court in Para 125 to Para 127 held as
under:-
“125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV
Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for a(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (14 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]separate endorsement for operating a ‘Transport Vehicle’,
if a driver already holds a LMV license. We must
however clarify that the exceptions carved out by the
legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws
or vehicles carrying hazardous goods, will remain
unaffected by the decision of this Court.
126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the definition
of LMV under Section 2(21) of the MV Act explicitly
provides what a ‘Transport Vehicle’ ‘means’. This Court
must ensure that neither provision i.e. the definition
under Section 2(21) or the second part of Section 3(1)
which concerns the necessity for a driving license for a
‘Transport Vehicle’ is reduced to a dead letter of law.
Therefore, the emphasis on ‘Transport Vehicle’ in the
licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context
of the ‘medium’ and ‘heavy’ vehicles. This harmonious
reading also aligns with the objective of the 1994
amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing
procedure.
127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the
broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and
ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of
road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier
discussed at length. An authoritative pronouncement by
this Court would prevent insurance companies from taking
a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for
compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below
7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a
‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class.”
20. By the above conclusion, as recorded by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is clear that a light motor vehicle does not
require a separate licence and further the insurance company
cannot be allowed to take a technical plea to defeat a legitimate
claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4904] (15 of 15) [CMA-3537/2008]
below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of
a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class. It is not in dispute in the present
case that the driver was having a valid light motor vehicle
licence. It is also not in a dispute that the owner of the vehicle
had the required insurance policy. Further, considering the
judgment as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Nagashetty (supra), this Court noted that merely because a
trolley is attached to the tractor, the claim cannot be denied in
terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
cases of ‘M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.‘ (supra)
and Nagashetty (supra). This Court finds that the finding as
recorded by the learned Tribunal in Issue No.3, by which the
insurance company has been held entitled to recover the
compensation amount as awarded from the appellants herein, is
erroneous and contrary to the above discussed settled law,
therefore, the findings so recorded in Issue No.3, being
perverse, are hereby quashed and set aside and the appeal filed
by the appellants is allowed partly and the award is modified to
the extent that the insurance company is liable to pay the claim
amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal vide judgment and
award dated 01.06.2007.
21. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
23. All pending(s) application(s) shall also stands disposed of.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J
Ravi Khandelwal
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 11:56:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 09:01:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
