[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Sharifabibi Wd-O Khurshid Abdulsattar ... on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1854/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1854 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
SHARIFABIBI WD-O KHURSHID ABDULSATTAR RANGER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 10,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 09.01.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary), Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP No.595/2009,
whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.5,28,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal,
thereby challenging the impugned judgment on the ground of its liability
to satisfy the award. The facts in question are not disputed, therefore,
the same are not narrated hereinunder for the sake of brevity.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1854/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
insurance company vehemently submitted that the driver of the chakda
rickshaw bearing registration no.GJ-20-T-3966 was not having the valid
driving license to drive the said chakda rickshaw, therefore, the liability
could not be fastened upon the insurance company to satisfy the award.
She further submitted that the license proved at Exh.29 clearly
transpires that the said license was issued to drive the non-transport
vehicle; however, the chakda rickshaw in question was a transport
vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to
satisfy the award.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Adnan A. Khan, learned counsel for Mr.
MTM Hakim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimant vehemently submitted that the issue involved in the present
appeal is no more res integra and the same has been settled by the
judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Ramba Devi & Ors., reported in 2024 (11) SCR
541. He further submitted that in view of the settled legal preposition of
law, the present appeal deserves to be rejected.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment hold that the driver of the
chakda rickshaw in question was not holding valid driving license at the
time of accident, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay
the amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal further considering
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1854/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
the ratio of the judgment of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Swaran Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531, directed all the
tortfeasors jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. It is not in
dispute that at the time of accident, the respondent no.1/driver before
the learned Tribunal was holding the driving license to drive the Light
Motor Vehicle (LMV) and there was no endorsement on the said license
to drive the transport vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the laden
weight of the chakda rickshaw was not more than 7,500 kg. Thus, no
endorsement is required on the license to drive the transport vehicle.
The issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra and the
same has been settled by the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of
the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramba Devi & Ors.
(supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.131 of
the judgment has observed as under:-
"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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1854/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
(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."
7. Thus, in view of the settled legal position, no further authorization
is required to drive the chakda rickshaw, therefore, the respondent no.1/
driver of the offending chakda was having the valid driving license to
drive the said chakda in question. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgment and award and hence, the appeal deserves to be
rejected and accordingly rejected.
8. The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount,
after deducting deficit of Court fee, if any, after due verification. The
amount, if any, lying deposited with the registry of this Court, the same
shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. No
order as to costs.
9. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
