Gujarat High Court
Jyoti Traders vs Javriben Dineshbhai Shah Deleted on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2163/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2163 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2163 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
JYOTI TRADERS
Versus
JAVRIBEN DINESHBHAI SHAH DELETED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NIKHIL S VYAS(5663) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate on record for the
appellant. Learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar has entered her
appearance on behalf of respondent no.4-Insurance Company.
Learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Vyas has appeared on behalf of
respondent no.2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2163/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
2. Despite service of rule upon respondent no.3, no appearance
has been entered. Looking at the limited issue involved, the appeal is
taken up for hearing in absence of respondent no. 3.
3. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, at the instance of the original opponent no.2 being
the driver of the offending vehicle; being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the judgment and award dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) at Surat in M.A.C.P. No.482 of
2006, to the extent whereby, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance
Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants at the
first instance. However, the Tribunal has further permitted the
respondent no.4-Insurance Company to recover the same from the
insured/owner-appellant herein.
4. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14.07.2022, in light of the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited
reported in (2017) 4 SCC 663, had admitted the appeal.
5. Learned advocate for the appellants, at the outset, while
referring to the aforesaid order and the grounds raised in the appeal,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2163/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
has submitted that the Tribunal committed gross error in fixing the
liability of the appellant towards the payment of compensation by
permitting the respondent no.4-Insurance Company to realize the
amount of compensation, paid to the claimants. Referring to the
findings and reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal, learned
advocate has pointed out that it is an undisputed fact that the driver
of the offending vehicle was holding license to drive the non-transport
vehicle. It is also an undisputed fact that the Tempo involved in the
accident, was used for the purpose of transport. However, the learned
Tribunal has committed error in arriving at a conclusion that the driver
of the offending Tempo had committed breach of Policy and its Terms
& Conditions, and therefore, the liability was fixed of the appellant to
make good the payment of compensation.
6. Learned advocate for the appellant has referred to the extract
of Driving License, which is proved and admitted as an evidence at
Exh.49. The extract of the certificate of registration was also referred
to and relied upon. He has further pointed out that offending Tempo
belongs to the class of vehicles falling under "light motor vehicle". The
driving license clearly indicates that the driver was permitted to drive
the vehicle having gross vehicle weight up to 1350 Kgs and unladen
weight up to 685 Kgs. By referring to the aforesaid documents,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2163/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
learned advocate has further invited my attention to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra),
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if a person is
holding license to drive the motor vehicle and the RTO has permitted
him to drive such having gross vehicle, weight of which, does not
exceed 7500 Kgs., then no separate endorsement on the license is
required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle, it would
amount to sufficient compliance of the license being issued for
transport vehicle as well. He has, therefore, urged this Court to quash
and set aside the directions of the Tribunal, inasmuch as, the Insurance
Company is extended liberty to recover the amount of compensation
being paid to the original claimants, as according to him, this would
amount to sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act, and then
being no breach of Terms & Conditions of the Policy.
7. Learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar appearing for the
respondent-Insurance Company is unable to contradict the aforesaid
submissions of learned advocate for the appellant, more particularly,
in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan (supra). She has, therefore, urged this Court to
pass appropriate orders.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2163/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
8. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned advocates for
the respective parties and having perused the findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal, in light of the aforesaid relevant documents
as relied upon and referred to by the learned advocate for the
appellant, the only limited issue raised for consideration before this
Court is whether a person holding a license for a 'light mother vehicle'
class, can drive a 'transport vehicle' without a specific endorsement
provided the 'gross vehicle weight' of the vehicle does not exceed
7500 Kgs? The aforesaid issue has fell for consideration before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra).
Admittedly, the extract of Driving License indicates that the driver of
offending vehicle Tempo involved in the accident, though was
authorized to drive light motor vehicle, the certificate of registration
of opponent no.1-Driver, suggests that he was permitted to drive the
vehicle, wherein gross vehicle weight does not exceed 1350 Kgs. and
unladen weight was permitted up to 685 Kgs, which does not exceed
the limit of 7500 Kgs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decision concluded that the holder of a license for a 'light motor
vehicle' class need not have a separate endorsement to drive
'transport vehicle', if it falls under the 'light motor vehicle' class i.e.
below 7500 Kgs. In light of the provisions, more particularly, the
expression "transport vehicle" being substituted in Section 10 (2) (e)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2163/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
by virtue of Act No. 54, 1994, with effect from 14.11.1994. In the
aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the
definion of the term "light motor vehicle" as defined under Section
2(21) of the Act, 1988, read with Section 2(15) and 2(48), the Court has
held that the transport vehicle and Omnibus, where the gross vehicle
weight of either of which, does not exceed 7500 Kgs., and also a
motor car or tractor or road roller "unladen weight" of which does not
exceed 7500 Kgs., would be a light motor vehicle. It would be apposite
to mention that the aforesaid decision of three Judges Bench was
referred to Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi ( 2024
INSC 840) . The Larger Bench upon appreciation of licensing regime
under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder has
upheld the aforesaid view by holding that neither the Act nor the
Rules provide for separate endorsement for operating a 'Transport
Vehicle', if a driver already holds a LMV license.
9. In view of the aforesaid observation and decision, this Court is
inclined to accept the present appeal. The impugned judgment and
award dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi) at Surat in M.A.C.P. No.482 of 2006, is hereby quashed
and set aside, whereby it extends the liberty to the Insurance
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2163/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
Company to recover the amount of compensation paid to the
claimants from the insured/owner-appellant herein.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is allowed. The
directions issued qua the appellant herein, are quashed and set aside
to the aforesaid extent. Connected Civil Application (for stay) stands
disposed of, accordingly.
11. With these observations, the present appeal stands disposed
of. No order as to costs.
12. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
