Punjab-Haryana High Court

Om Parkash vs Dharma And Ors on 4 November, 2025

Author: Amarinder Singh Grewal

Bench: Amarinder Singh Grewal

FAO-4184-2002
         2002 (O&M                -1-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

225                                                FAO No.4184 of 2002 (O&M)
                                                   Date of Decision:
                                                           Decision:04.11.2025

Om Parkash                                                          ...Appellant

                                          Versus
Dharma and Ors                                                   ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:     Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for
             Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate,
             for the appellant.

             None for respondents.

             ***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

appellant

superdar/owner of the insured/offending vehicle challenging the impugned award

dated 16.05.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat

(for short, 'the learned Tribunal'), whereby while awarding compensation of

Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimants on

accountt of the death of Smt. Makri Devi in a motor vehicular accident accident, it has

granted recovery rights to respondent No.6-insurance No.6 insurance company against him.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 11.04.1998 at about 5:00

P.M.,., Smt. Makri Devi, aged about 50 50 to 55 years, along with her grandson-

grandson

Sudesh Kumar (daughter's son) was going to village Nangal Kheri to visit her

daughter. After alighting from a bus at the bus stop of village Nangal Kheri, and

while crossing the G.T. Road, a Canter bearing registratio registration No.DL-1LB-0556

(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) vehicle),, driven by respondent

No.1/driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the Panipat side, veered

1 of 8

FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -2-

onto the kacha portion of the road and hit Smt. Makri Devi, as a result of which

she sustained stained grievous injuries and succumbed to her injuries en route to the Civil

Hospital, Panipat. FIR No.188 dated 11.04.1998 under Sections 279 and 304 304-A A of

the IPC was registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Pan Panipat, ipat, against

respondent No.1-driver No.1 of the he offending vehicle vehicle.. The claimants, being the legal

representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking compensation for

her untimely death. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on

record, assessed sessed her monthly income at ₹2000/ 000/-, applied a multiplier of 10 and

after deducting one-third one third towards personal expenses, awarded total compensation

of ₹1,70,000/-,, inclusive of ₹10,000/- towards funeral expenses, along with

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation,

holding the respondents before it jointly and severally liable.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant appellant-owner contends that the

learned Tribunal erred in granting recovery righ rights ts to the insurer and in holding

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the

offending vehicle. It is further argued that the compensation of ₹1,70,000/- with

interest @9% 9% per annum is excessive, as the deceased being an elderly lady of

more than 55 years, years was not substantially contributing to the household. It is

urged that the finding regarding invalidity of the driving licence is perverse, since

the driver possessed a valid and effective LMV licence at the time of tthe he accident.

In terms of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a light motor vehicle

includes transport vehicle, unladen weight of which does not exceed 77500

kilograms, and hence the insurer failed to prove any breach of policy. In support

of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by Constitution Bench of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.





                                       2 of 8

 FAO-4184-2002
         2002 (O&M               -3-

Vs. Rambha Devi (2025) 3 SCC 95. The appellant appellant, therefore, seeks setting aside

of the impugned award by way of instant appeal.

4. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.6 No.6-insurance insurance

company. The appeal is of the year 2002, records of which had burnt in a fire

incident occurred in this Court and the papers were ordered to be reconstructed.

Therefore, ore, keeping in view the fact that the appeal is of the year 2002, this Court

proceeds to dispose of the same with the assistance of learned counsel for the

appellant and the records available.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal

of the material on record, the following issue arises for determination:

determination:-

"Whether the driver, who was holding a driving licence (Ex. R--2) for the 'Light Motor Vehicle' category of vehicles, was competent and duly authorised to drive the offending vehicle described as a 'Canter', being a transport vehicle 'Canter', vehicle?"

6. The term 'Light Motor Vehicle' has been defined uunder nder Section 2(21) of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is reproduced as under:

under:-

"Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which, or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed road-roller 7,500 kilograms."

Further, Section 2(23) defines defines a "Medium Goods Vehicle" as

under:-

"Medium Goods Goods Vehicle means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle."

Similarly, Section 2(16) defines defines a "Heavy Goods Vehicle" as under:-

under:

3 of 8

FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -4-

"Heavy Goods Vehicle means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road road-roller roller the unladen weight of any of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms."

Section 2(47) defines a "Transport Vehicle" as under:-

"Transport Vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle."

7. From a combined reading of aforesaid provisions, it is evident that a

transport vehicle, unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs falls within

the definition of 'Light Motor Vehicle' and therefore, no separate endorsement

with respect to authorization to drive a transport vehicle of that category is

required. While dealing with the issue where here a driver holding a licence

authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle was driving a Tata 407 Canter, a

Division Bench of the Karnatakaa High Court (Dharwad Bench) in The Divisional

Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Israr Ahamad & Ors., MFA

/2017 (MV) decided on 03.03.2020 No.101323/2017 03.03.2020, while relying on the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental

Insurance 3668 has held that in the absence of any nce Co. Ltd., AIR 2017 SC 3668,

evidence from the insurer to establish that gross weight of the offending Canter

exceeded 7500 500 kilograms, the driver holding a valid LMV licence was duly

authorised to drive the said vehicle vehic and consequently, onsequently, the insurer cannot avoid

liability on this ground.

ground The he relevant paragraph paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement are

reproduced herein:-

herein:

"8.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-

appellant insurer that the said driving licence is a light motor vehicle licence but the vehicle involved is 407 Canter TATA motor vehicle that he is not authorized to drive the said vehicle. But, in vview iew of the decision

4 of 8

FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -5-

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukundan Dewangan V/s.

Limited,, reported in AIR 2017 SC Oriental Insurance Company Limited 3668, that if the driver of the offending vehicle if he is having light motor vehicle driving licence, then unde underr such circumstances he is also competent to drive the other vehicles. He can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for the purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. This proposition of law has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court at para Nos.45 and 46 which reads as under:

"45. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a priva private te service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an eendorsement ndorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of th thee Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994.

46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended amended position as well the post-

post amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section

5 of 8

FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -6-

10(2)(d), Rulee 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger ssenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

(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 which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, r, 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.

(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to

(h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesa aforesaid id substituted classes only.

It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain

6 of 8

FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -7-

driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain sep separate arate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."

9. When admittedly, the driver of the vehicle is having a LMV driving licence and it is valid as on the date of alleged accident, then under such circumstances the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle was not appellant-Insurer possessing valid licence and he is not lliable iable to pay the compensation, is not acceptable."

acceptable.

8. Recently, a Constitution of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj

Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has revisited and reaffirmed the law

laid down in the judgment of Mukund Dewangan (supra). Relevant paragraph of

the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

under:

"131.

131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:

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, rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasiz emphasizes es the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a `Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) (21) of the MV Act.

(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified iin n 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 `he `heavy avy passenger vehicle'.

7 of 8

FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -8-

(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. Admittedly, the driver of the offending Canter in the present case

was holding a valid and effective LMV licence issued by the Licensing

Authority, Faridabad, which was valid from 08.12.1997 to 07.12.2017. As the

unladen weight of the offending vehicle was less than 77500 500 kilograms, he was

fully authorised to drive it. Therefore, The finding of the learned Tribunal that the

driver lacked a valid licence is unsustainable in the eyes of law.. Consequently,

the finding of the learned Tribunal qua grant of recovery rights to the insurer

against the appellant-owner appellant is set aside.

10. As regards the issue of quantum of compensation, this Court finds

no illegality and infirmity in the computation of same by the learned Tribunal and

the same is upheld.

11. As an upshot of above, the the impugned award dated 16.05.2001 passed