Madhya Pradesh High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Manoj Kumar Sharma on 29 October, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27305
1 MA-562-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 29th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 562 of 2016
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
Versus
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shrinivas Gajendragadkar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Singh- Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company being
aggrieved by the impugned award dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Fourth
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) (hereinafter
referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.155/2013, whereby
in the case of injuries sustained by the claimant/respondent No.1 in a motor
accident, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.89,800/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition
till realization and held the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable
with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to pay the said
compensation.
2. The date of accident and negligence are not in dispute and the findings
recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard are not in question.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27305
2 MA-562-2016
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted
that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle bearing Registration
No. MP06-L-0702, a Tata Magic (commercial vehicle), was being driven by
a Driver, who did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive a
transport vehicle. It is contended that the licence (Ex.D-1) possessed by the
driver was valid only for driving a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and not for a
transport vehicle, and therefore, there was a breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the learned counsel prayed
that the Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent supported the
impugned award and prayed for rejection of the appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
Claims Tribunal.
On perusal of the impugned award, it is found that at the time of
accident, Driver of the offending vehicle has possessed driving licence
(Ex.D-1) which is for Light Motor Vehicle not for Transport Vehicle. It is
also not in dispute that at the time of accident weight of the offending
vehicle was less than 7500 KG.
In the case of Mukund Devangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company,
2017 AIR (SC) 3668, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle
weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be
a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road
roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg.
and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor
vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive
a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27305
3 MA-562-2016
which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or
road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed
7500 kg.That is to say, no separate endorsement on the
licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor
vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under
section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act
54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form"
In view of the above judgment, it is clear that if weight of the
offending vehicle was up to 7500 KG and Driver of the offending vehicle
has possessed driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle, then he was eligible to
drive such offending vehicle. Therefore, there is no breach of any terms and
conditions of Insurance Policy. So, it is clear that no separate endorsement
on license is required to drive transport vehicle and, therefore, this argument
has no substance.
So, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held the Insurance
Company jointly and severally liable along with the owner and driver to pay
compensation to the claimant. The award passed by the Tribunal is well
reasoned, based on correct appreciation of law and evidence, and does not
call for any interference by this Court.
In view of the above, appeal stands dismissed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*AVI*
