Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Lalita Devi And Ors. ... on 27 October, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:46264]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1384/2017

United     India     Insurance       Company          Limited,       Falna   Tehsil    -
Sumerpur, District - Pali, Through Deputy Ma, United India
Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati N-Plaza, Main
Pal Road, Jodhpur Raj. ...insurer
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                        Versus
1.       Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Late Mr. Kaluram, By Caste Hiragar,
         R/o Near Nehar, Village Sumerpur, Tehsil Sumerpur,
         District Pali Raj.
2.       Ritika D/o Late Sh. Kaluram, Minor, Through Natural
         Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita Devi, By Caste Hiragar, R/o
         Near Nehar, Village Sumerpur, Tehsil Sumerpur, District
         Pali Raj.
3.       Chetan S/o Late Sh. Kaluram Hiragar, Minor, Through
         Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita Devi, By Caste
         Hiragar,     R/o     Near      Nehar,       Village        Sumerpur,     Tehsil
         Sumerpur, District Pali Raj.
4.       Narayan       Singh      S/o      Sh.      Raghunath          Singh,     Caste
         Rajpurohit, R/o Village Falna, Tehsil Bali, District Pali
         Raj. ...driver Cum Owner Of Maruti Omni
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Lalit Parihar, Adv. with
                                   Mr. Kamaljeet Meena,
                                   Mr. Shubhankar Johari,
                                   Mr. Gaurav Vatvani
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Ravi Panwar, Adv.



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

27/10/2025

Instant misc. appeal has been filed by the

appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the impugned judgment & award

(Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 02:51:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:46264] (2 of 6) [CMA-1384/2017]

dated 20.01.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim

Tribunal, Sumerpur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/

Tribunal") in MAC Case No.43/2013 (545/2014), whereby the

learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the

respondents/claimants and awarded a compensation of

Rs.20,20,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. while holding the

appellant/Insurance Company liable, jointly and severally, to pay

the compensation.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-claimants

filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act before the

learned Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of Kaluram,

who succumbed to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident,

occurred on 07.08.2012. It was averred that the accident was the

result of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent

No.4, driver of the offending car.

In response, the appellant/Insurance Company and the

respondent No.4/ driver of the offending car filed their reply to the

claim petition, denying the averments of the claim petition.

Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

learned Tribunal framed four issues including the relief.

In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim

petition, the respondents/claimants examined two witnesses and

exhibited some documents. In defence, two witnesses were

examined and some documents were exhibited.

After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned

Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of

Rs.20,20,000/- in favour of the respondents/claimants while

holding the appellant/Insurance Company liable jointly and

(Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 02:51:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:46264] (3 of 6) [CMA-1384/2017]

severally for the same. Hence this civil misc. appeal on behalf of

the appellant/Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has

argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the

impugned award of Rs.20,20,000/- while fastening joint & several

liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company. Counsel submits

that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid

driving licence, nor were the requisite permit and fitness

certificate available at the time of accident. As such, the driver

had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Further, the accident occurred due to rash and negligence driving

of the deceased himself. Hence, the learned Tribunal wrongly held

liable the appellant-Insurance Company for payment of award

amount.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants

while vehemently opposing the prayer of the appellant/Insurance

Company has submitted that award passed by the Tribunal is fair

and just. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned

judgment and award.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company

as well as learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and

perused the award impugned.

The main contention of the appellant- Insurance Company is

that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had

a 'light motor vehicle' licence, whereas he was driving a 'light

transport vehicle', therefore, there was a clear breach of insurance

policy condition.

(Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 02:51:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:46264] (4 of 6) [CMA-1384/2017]

The issue with respect to persons having a particular class of

licence authorizing to drive a particular type of vehicle, but on the

date of accident found driving the vehicle other than the type of

vehicle mentioned in the licence, but of the same category, has

been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and held as under:-

"59. 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 position as well the post- amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28-03-2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 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 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.

60. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

60.1. "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 Sections 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 of 1994.

60.2. 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

(Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 02:51:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:46264] (5 of 6) [CMA-1384/2017]

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, 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 28-03-2001 in the form.

60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 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 aforesaid 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."

Regarding the facts of the present case, a careful

examination of Ex. D-1 indicates that the driver of the offending

vehicle possessed a valid driving licence for Light Motor Vehicles

(LMV), issued on 26.12.2003 and valid until 25.12.2013. The

accident occurred on 07.08.2012, during the validity period of the

licence. Therefore, at the time of the incident, the driver was duly

authorized to operate a Light Motor Vehicle. According to the

provisions of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, any vehicle

with a weight of less than 7,500 kilograms is classified as a 'Light

Motor Vehicle.' A perusal of Ex. 17, which details the registration

particulars, reveals that the unladen weight of the offending

vehicle was 800 kilograms, which is below the threshold of 7,500