Delhi High Court – Orders
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mohd. Irshad & Ors on 18 May, 2026
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 855/2013
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Advocate for Mr.
Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
MOHD. IRSHAD & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Baniwal, Ms. Manisha,
Mr. R.K. Seewal, Advocates for
Respondent no.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 18.05.2026
1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company for assailing the
award dated 17th August 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’) awarding compensation of
Rs.1,38,237/- along with 9% interest.
2. The singular ground of appeal by the Insurance Company is that there
was lack of endorsement on the driver’s license for driving a commercial
vehicle. The accident took place on 03rd August 2012, where the claimant was
travelling on foot near Sadar Police Station, Delhi, when he was hit by the
D-van bearing registration no. DL-1LJ-2145, causing grievous injuries.
3. The Insurance Company took up the issue that the said vehicle was a
Light Goods Vehicle, but the license was only valid for Light Motor Vehicle
(‘LMV’) and there was no endorsement for a commercial vehicle.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 21:18:13
4. This issue may no longer be res integra, considering the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
2017 14 SCC 663, which was upheld in the judgment of Bajaj Alliance
General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Rambha Devi and Ors. (2023) 4 SCC
723.
5. The issue arose in Mukund Dewangan (supra), whether a driver who
has a license to drive LMV, needs to obtain additional endorsement to drive a
‘transport vehicle’ under amended Section 10(2)(e). The Supreme Court
reached a conclusion that the definition of light motor vehicle as in Section 2
(21) MV Act, would include a transport vehicle if it is within the weight
prescribed in Section 2 (21) read with Sections 2 (15) and Section 2 (48) of
the MV Act. Such transport vehicles were not excluded from the definition of
light motor vehicles by virtue of the Amendment Act 54 of 1994. Relevant
paragraphs of the Mukund Dewangan (supra):
“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 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 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 roadroller, “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,This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 21:18:13
the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed
7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, 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 of 1994 and
28-3-2001 in the form.
60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of
Act 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 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. Since there were differing views of various benches on this issue, a
reference was made by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rambha
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 21:18:13
Devi (supra), to a Constitutional Bench on whether a person holding a driving
license in respect of LMV could on the strength of same license be entitled to
drive a transport vehicle of LMV class having unladen weight not exceeding
7500 kgs. Accordingly, the Supreme Court deliberated upon the issue and
upheld the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra) and held as under:
“181. Our conclusions following the above
discussion are as under:
181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor
vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg,
is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle”
without needing additional authorisation 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
emphasises 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
the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving
“transport vehicles” would apply only to those
intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle
weight exceeding 7500 kg i.e. “medium goods
vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”, “heavy
goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger vehicle”.
181.4. The decision in Mukund Dewangan
(2017) [Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663] is upheld but for
reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 21:18:13
absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is
not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the
MV Act and the MV Rules were not considered in
the said judgment.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. This issue has been considered by this Court in MAC.APP.144/2017
titled as “The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Charan & Ors.”
8. Considering the decisions of the Supreme Court, the appeal cannot be
sustained and, therefore, is dismissed.
9. By order dated 20th September 2013, compensation was deposited
before the MACT. Now, since the appeal stands dismissed, the total
compensation be released to the claimants, if not already released, by the
MACT in accordance with the directions of the MACT in the impugned
award.
10. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.
11. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
MAY 18, 2026/ak/bp
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 21:18:13
