Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Snational Insurance Co Ltd vs Jai Singh And Ors (2026:Rj-Jp:15612) on 15 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:15612]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 488/2004
National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Patwari
Bhawan, Kachahari Road, Ajmer, having its Regional Office at 10-
Narain Singh Road, Jaipur through its Regional Manager.
----Appellant/Non-claimant
Versus
1. Jai Singh S/o Shri Suwa Singh, aged about 30 years,
2. Smt. Prem wife of Jain Singh, aged about 27 years,
Both residents of Hakola-Ka- Badiya, Village Badliya, District
Ajmer (Raj.)
...Respondent/Claimants
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
Judgment
15/04/2026
1. 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.
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:58:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:54:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15612] (2 of 6) [CMA-488/2004]
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and
award, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
5. 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
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:58:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:54:19 PM)
[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.
6. 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.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record, as also the impugned judgment and award.
8. 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.
9. 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
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:58:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:54:19 PM)
[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.
10. 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.
11. 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
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:58:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:54:19 PM)
[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.
xxxx
30. 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.(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:58:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:54:19 PM)
[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.
12. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed.
13. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
14. Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J
TN/41
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:58:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:54:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)