[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajendra S/O Amrutlal Adhiya vs The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. ... on 3 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13623
fa 413-2017.doc 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.413/2017
Rajendra S/o. Amrutlal Adhiya,
Age about 53 years, Occupation:
Cultivator, R/o.Village Pathri,
Tahasil: Saoli, District: Chandrapur.
... APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. The United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., Through its Branch Manager,
Abhishekh Building, Mul Road,
Chandrapur, Distt. Chandrapur.
2. Shobha wd/o Shalik Naitam,
Aged about 45 years, Occupation:
Household, R/o.Tambegadi
(Mendha), Tahasil Sindewahi,
District: Chandrapur
3. Sachin s/o Shalikrao Naitam,
Aged about 31 years, Occupation:
Nil, R/o.Tambegadi (Mendha),
Tahasil Sindewahi, District :
Chandrapur.
4. Jayant s/o Shalikrao Naitam,
Age about 28 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Tambegadi (Mendha),
Tah. Sindewahi, Distt. Chandrapur.
5. Saoji s/o Ramaji Naitam, (Dead), Deleted
Aged about 85 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Maregaon, Tahasil & District
Chandrapur.
(Deleted as per Court's
fa 413-2017.doc 2/9
order dated 26.11.2021)
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.B. Gawali, Advocate for appellant
Shri Asghar Hussain, Advocate for respondent No.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 03.12.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard.
2. The present appeal is filed by the owner of the
offending vehicle assailing thereby the judgment and order passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, in MACP
No.37/2011 whereby learned Tribunal has hold responsible the
owner of vehicle to pay the compensation and permitted the
Insurance Company to pay and recover the amount from the owner
of the vehicle.
3. In the present matter, it is undisputed fact that the
deceased was travelling by tractor and trolley loaded with paddy
bags, due to negligent driving, the vehicle was turned turtle. At that
time, the deceased, who was sitting on the paddy bags in trolly has
fell down and succumbed to his injuries.
4. In the background of above said accident, the legal
representatives of the deceased has filed petition before the Claim
Tribunal. In the said claim petition, the owner as well as the
Insurance Company were made party. Applicant by stating the
monthly income of deceased Rs.4000/- per month, claimed total
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
5. The appellant has specifically stated that deceased was
working as a Labourer with respondent No.1, who is the owner of
the tractor. It is also not disputed that the accident occurred during
the travelling, while the deceased was sitting on a paddy bags and
fell down during the course of travelling from the tractor and
trolley. It is also not disputed that the owner of the vehicle did not
enter into the witness box to dispute the factual aspect. As such,
occurrence of accident, deceased was doing labour work and
validity of Insurance Policy is not disputed in the matter.
6. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company came with a
submission that there is a breach of policy on the part of the driver
of the vehicle as he was not possessing a valid licence to run the
tractor and trolley. According to the Insurance Company, he was
holding the licence of light motor vehicle of non-transport vehicle
and, therefore, he was not permitted to drive the tractor. According
to them, on this count, the Insurance Company is not responsible to
pay the compensation.
7. The perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that
the learned Tribunal relying upon the submission of the Insurance
Company and by holding that the driver of the tractor and trolly
was holding the licence of light motor vehicle non-transport, not
qualified to drive tractor-trolly which was transport vehicle and
same amounts to breach of Insurance Policy and, thereby, the
Insurance Company was exonerated from the payment of
compensation. Learned Tribunal passed the order of pay and
recover in the matter.
8. The owner of the vehicle, who challenged the
judgment and order before this Court has came with a specific
submission that the law is now well settled on the point that driver,
who was possessing licence of light motor vehicle can drive the
transport vehicle also. In this regard he has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors.,
reported in MANU/SC/1178/2024, whereby Hon'ble Supreme
Court has drawn conclusion as under:
"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 Page 125 of 126 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.
(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."
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company has raised strong objection to the present appeal by
stating that the tractor was accompanied by trolley and, therefore,
the learned Tribunal was right in holding that when the trolley is
attached to the tractor, then same does not come under the
category of light motor vehicle. Hence, the finding recorded by the
Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse in the matter.
10. In light of the submission of both the parties, it will be
useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others
reported in (2001)8 SCC 56 particularly in para 10 of the
judgment:
"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. 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. If 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 driving 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 view of this law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it is clear that merely because trailer/trolley is added either
to a tractor or a motor vehicle by itself does not make the tractor or
motor vehicle a transport vehicle and, thereby, it is hold that the
person who is otherwise having any valid driving license cannot be
held that there is breach of policy of insured vehicle.
12. In my view, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court India in case of Nagashetty covered the issue involved in the
present matter.
13. I am of the opinion that the observation of the learned
Tribunal to the extent that there was a breach of policy on the
ground that the driver of the tractor was having a light motor
vehicle non-transport cannot drive the tractor and trolley are
incorrect and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order needs interference in
the matter. Hence I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) It is held that driver of Tractor-Trolly was holding valid and
effective licence and thereby exonerating Insurance Company from
the responsibility to pay compensation is hereby quashed and set
aside. Consequently, direction issued in the impugned judgment
and order dated 08.04.2015 from 4A to 4D are also quashed and
set aside.
iii) Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the amount
of compensation either before Claim Tribunal or before this Court
within a period of 3 months.
iv) Rest of the judgment of awarding interest on compensation
amount, appointment of compensation amount between legal heirs,
deposit of certain amount is hereby confirmed.
15. The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No
order as to the costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/12/2025 12:45:09
