Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Chanchiben Wd-O Saradarji V Thakor on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/864/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 864 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
CHANCHIBEN WD-O SARADARJI V THAKOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and award
dated 04.05.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
(Auxiliary), Ahmedabad. Vide the said judgment and award, the
petition was partly-allowed with a direction that the original
claimants were entitled to recover a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from
the opponents, jointly and severally with simple interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization
along with proportional cost.
2. The accident occurs on the fateful day, Shambhuji Sardarji
V. Thakore (the deceased) was walking down to his home at
village Parbatpura, at which time he ended up being hit by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/864/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
Tempo, bearing Registration No.GBQ-6731, which being driven
in rash and negligent manner. In short, the deceased was a
pedestrian and it was the case of the claimants - his heirs that
the deceased was walking on the left side of the road.
3. The challenge to the present judgment and award is on the
ground that the concerned driver of the tempo, bearing
Registration No.GBQ-6731, was not holding a valid and effective
licence inasmuch, as there was no endorsement on the licence
for him to drive a medium goods vehicle. Resultantly, it is the
case of the appellant - Insurance Company that it has been
wrongly held to be liable to pay the compensation to the original
claimants.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar appearing for
the appellant. He has vehemently submitted that the finding of
the learned Tribunal, in holding the Insurance Company liable
despite rendering finding in para 26, whereat, after quoting the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal
No.1549 of 2012 with First Appeal No.1550 of 2012, dated
06.12.2012, the learned Tribunal has held that mere non-
possession of the licence, by itself, is not a ground which is
available to the insurer to disown its liability and that the
Insurance Company ought to hold that the non-possession of the
valid licence was a reason of causing of the accident. It was thus
submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal that there was
no valid and effective licence, is fortified, as has been submitted
in the present appeal. It was thus submitted that the Insurance
Company may be exonerated on account of the said fact.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/864/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
5. On the contrary, learned advocate Mr.R.K.Mansuri
appearing for the original claimants - respondent Nos.1 to 4 has
submitted that the judgment is just and it does not require any
interference. He has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Rambha Devi and others - 2024 INSC 840. He has
submitted that the said issue agitated qua license is no longer res
integra and that therefore, the appeal is liable to fail.
6. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties,
the following point of determination arises for the consideration
by this Court :
"(A) Whether lack of endorsement enabling the driver to
drive a transport vehicle is sufficient to absolve the
Insurance Company of its liability to honour the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal?"
7. At the outset, this Court proposes to quote the relevant
observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Rambha Devi
(supra) :
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/864/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
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."
8. In light of the aforesaid quoting, it is plain that irrespective
of endorsement on the licence, more particularly when the
vehicle is below unladen weight of 7500 Kgs., the lack of
endorsement, so as to enable the driver to drive a transport
vehicle by itself is not fatal and would not absolve the insurer
from its liability. In the present case, the tempo, obviously, is not
be more than 7500 Kgs. and therefore, the ratio laid down in
Rambha Devi (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of
the present case.
9. Hence, the present appeal is without merit and is liable to
be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in
aforesaid terms. Registry is directed to send back the record and
proceedings to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
GAURAV J THAKER/JIGAR J RABARI
