[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Jamna Kanwar on 30 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:19591]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1667/2008

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office,
Kankroli District Rajsamand through its legally constituted
authority Divisional Office 1, Abhaya Chambers, Jalori Gate,
Jodhpur.
                                                                        ----Appellant


                                      Versus


1.   Smt.     Jamuna      Kanwar,        W/o      Shri     Abhayasingh        Solanki
2. Smt. Sergeant Bai w/o Shri                       Baktawar Singh Solanki.
3. Shri Baktawarsingh Solanki S/o late Shri Chandansingh.
residents of village Podawali Tehsil and District Rajsamand.
4. Udaisingh S/O Shri Lalsingh Rajput R/O Navalsingh Ka Kheda,
village Amet District Rajsamand. (Owner)


                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Jagdish Vyas
                                  Mr. Shyam Charan

For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sanjeev Beniwal



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Judgment

Reportable

1. Date of conclusion of arguments 18.04.2026

2. Date on which judgment was reserved 18.04.2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment

4. Date of pronouncement 30.04.2026

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment dated

17.12.2005 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's

Compensation, Rajsamand. By the said order, the learned

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (2 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

Commissioner, while allowing the claim petition filed by the

claimants, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,15,960/-,

along with interest amounting to Rs. 49,915/- and funeral

expenses of Rs. 2,500/-, totaling Rs. 4,68,410/-.

2. The learned Commissioner further directed that the aforesaid

amount be paid within a period of sixty days, failing which the

amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum after

the expiry of the said period of sixty days.

Factual Matrix:

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/respondent No.1,

Smt. Jamna Kanwar, filed a claim petition before the learned

Commissioner, inter alia stating that her husband, Abhay Singh,

was employed as a driver by the employer-owner, Udai Singh, and

was engaged in driving a tempo (Vikram) bearing registration No.

RJ-30-P-0819. It was stated that on 30.11.2004, the said tempo

met with an accident, and her husband, Abhay Singh, succumbed

to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

3.1 It was further averred that the deceased was earning Rs.

4,000/- per month from the employer as salary, and, therefore, a

prayer was made for award of compensation to the tune of Rs.

4,27,140/- along with interest and penalty.

3.2 Upon issuance of notice, respondent No. 1 (owner) filed his

reply, wherein he admitted the factum of the deceased being

employed under him as a driver of the vehicle in question and also

admitted that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,000/-

per month. The employer further admitted the factum of death of

the deceased in the accident in question; however, it was

submitted that since the vehicle was duly insured and, therefore,

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (3 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

any liability, if determined, was to be borne by the Insurance

Company.

3.3 The appellant-Insurance Company filed a separate reply,

denying the factum of employment of the deceased under the

employer- Udai Singh, as well as the occurrence of the accident in

question. It was further contended that the income of the

deceased, as claimed, was exaggerated. The Insurance Company

also raised an objection that the deceased did not possess a valid

driving license to drive the vehicle in question and, therefore,

submitted that it could not be fastened with liability for the

accident in question.

3.4 The claimant, Smt. Jamna Bai, wife of the deceased,

appeared in the witness box, produced and exhibited 14

documents, including the statement recorded after lodging of the

FIR, the registration certificate of the vehicle, the driving license of

the deceased, the insurance cover note, and other relevant

documents.

3.5 During the course of cross-examination, no question was put

with regard to the salary claimed by the claimant in her

examination-in-chief or as stated in the claim petition. On behalf

of the employer, Shri Udai Singh appeared in the witness box and

admitted that the deceased was employed under him and that he

was paying a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the deceased. On

behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, Shri Vikram Singh

was examined, who, in his cross-examination, admitted that the

tempo in question falls within the definition of a Light Motor

Vehicle. However, he expressed lack of knowledge as to the

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (4 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

category under which a tractor would fall for the purpose of

license being as valid.

3.6 The learned Commissioner framed three issues for

adjudication and, by the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2005,

decided all the issues, including the existence of employer-

employee relationship, the quantum of compensation, and the

liability to make payment in favour of the claimant. Hence, the

present appeal has been filed.

Arguments on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company:

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

vehemently argued that there was no cogent proof regarding the

income earned by the deceased, and that the learned

Commissioner, in absence of any documentary evidence,

arbitrarily assessed the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month. It was,

therefore, contended that the compensation awarded is on the

higher side.

5. He further raised an objection with regard to the award of

interest and fastening of liability for the same upon the appellant-

Insurance Company. However, he fairly conceded that in view of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New

India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai

Modhiya & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1926, the issue

relating to liability for payment of interest is no longer res integra,

and the same is liable to be borne by the appellant-Insurance

Company.

6. The learned counsel further emphatically argued that the

deceased was not holding a valid driving license to drive the

vehicle in question and, therefore, the liability could not have been

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (5 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company. It was further

submitted that a perusal of the driving license of the deceased

would reveal that the same was issued for driving a tractor only,

whereas the vehicle in question, though falling within the category

of Light Motor Vehicle, was in fact a transport vehicle. Therefore,

the deceased was not holding a valid and effective license to drive

the said vehicle. It was thus contended that, in view of the

provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"), the

appellant-Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability

to pay the compensation amount on account of breach of

insurance policy conditions, specifically the requirement that the

driver must hold a valid and effective driving license.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Beli Ram v. Rajendra Kumar &

Anr. [2020 INSC 560], emphasizing that even in cases under

the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the issue of validity of the

driving license must be considered. He submitted that unless the

concerned driver was holding a valid license, the Insurance

Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation. Reliance

was also placed on Oriental Insurance Co. v. Zahirulnisha &

Ors. 2008 (12) SCC 385, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held

that if the driver was not holding a valid license, the Insurance

Company cannot be held liable under Section 149 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

8. Learned counsel further referred to judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Mastana &

Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 261, to contend that the statutory defences

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (6 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are equally applicable

to proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in

view of Section 143 of the Act of 1988. He emphasized that where

the driver does not possess a valid license, the order of "pay and

recover" cannot be passed against the Insurance Company.

9. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in

New India Insurance Co. v. Smt. Pappu Devi & Ors. [S.B.

Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1142/2016, decided on 12.08.2024],

wherein it was held that the claimant has the option to seek

compensation either under the Act of 1923 or under the Act of

1988. Once the claimant chooses the remedy under the Act of

1923, and if liability of the Insurance Company is not established,

then the Insurance Company cannot be directed to pay the

compensation and thereafter recover the same from the

claimants.

Arguments on behalf of the respondents:

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported

the impugned judgment and submitted that, insofar as the income

of the deceased is concerned, a specific averment to that effect

was made by the claimant in the claim petition, and the same was

duly reiterated in her examination-in-chief, wherein the income of

the deceased was stated to be Rs. 4,000/- per month.

11. It was contended that no question was put to the claimant

during the course of cross-examination by the appellant-

Insurance Company with regard to the quantum of income, and

therefore, the said assertion stood duly proved. It was further

submitted that the owner of the vehicle, Shri Udai Singh, had also

admitted that he was paying Rs. 4,000/- per month to the

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (7 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

deceased as salary. Thus, the claimant had placed sufficient

material on record to establish the income of the deceased,

whereas the appellant-Insurance Company neither produced any

documentary evidence nor put any suggestion in cross-

examination to rebut the said fact. It was, therefore, contended

that the quantum of income cannot be disputed by the appellant-

Insurance Company at this stage.

12. It was submitted that as regards the issue of valid driving

license, the deceased was holding a license to drive a tractor, and

a tractor falls within the definition of 'Light Motor Vehicle' under

Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was further

contended that the vehicle in question had an unladen weight of

1180 kg and, therefore, clearly fell within the category of a 'Light

Motor Vehicle'. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 95, to

submit that even a transport vehicle having an unladen weight not

exceeding 7500 kg would fall within the category of Light Motor

Vehicle, and a person holding a license to drive a Light Motor

Vehicle is duly authorized to drive such a transport vehicle.

13. On these submissions, it was argued that the learned

Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned award, and the

present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Analysis:

14. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

15. As far as issue of interest is concerned, learned counsel for

the appellant very fairly admitted that, in view of the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co.

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (8 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya & Anr. (supra), the

law on this point is no longer res integra. It stands settled that the

Insurance Company is liable to make payment of interest on the

compensation awarded. Accordingly, the objection raised by the

Insurance Company in this regard is noted and rejected.

16. As far as issue of the earning and salary of the deceased is

concerned, it is noted that the Insurance Company has not placed

any material on record to contradict the stand of the claimant,

which was duly supported by the employer. The claimant

consistently stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per

month, and this assertion was reiterated in her examination-in-

chief. Significantly, during cross-examination, not a single question

was put to the claimant regarding the salary of the deceased, nor

was any suggestion made that the deceased was earning less than

Rs. 4,000/- per month. Furthermore, the employer himself

appeared in the witness box and categorically admitted that he

was paying Rs. 4,000/- per month to the deceased. Such

admission by the employer constitutes the best possible evidence

of the deceased's income. The Insurance Company has thus failed

to prove anything contrary to the claimant's stand. Accordingly,

the learned Commissioner has rightly assessed the salary of the

deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month, and no irregularity or illegality

can be found in such a finding.

17. As regards the contention of appellant that the deceased was

not holding a valid license to drive the vehicle in question, the

argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant at first

appears attractive; however, upon a minute perusal of the

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same does not

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (9 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

stand any ground. Section 2(21) of the Act of 1988 defines a

"Light Motor Vehicle" as follows:

(21) "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 [7500] kilograms;

Similarly, 'medium passenger motor vehicle' has been define under Section 2(24) as under:

(24) "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution bus other than a motor cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle;

'Tractor' itself has been defined under Section 2(44) as under:

(44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller;

and 'transport vehicle' has been defined under Section 2(47) as

under:

(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods

carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;

18. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates the

necessity of holding a valid driving license for driving any motor

vehicle. Section 6 of the Act of 1988 imposes restrictions on

holding more than one driving license. Section 7 provides for

restrictions on granting learner's licenses for certain categories of

vehicles. Section 9 lays down the procedure for grant of driving

licenses. Importantly, Section 10 prescribes the form and contents

of the driving license and specifies the classes of vehicles for

which a license may be issued. What is significant to note is that

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (10 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

Section 10 defines the types of licenses which a holder may

possess. Section 10 of the Act of 1988 reads as under:

"10. Form and contents of licenses to drive.--(1) Every learner's license and driving license, except a driving license issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's license or, as the case may be, driving license shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:--

(a) motor cycle without gear;

(b) motor cycle with gear;

(c) invalid carriage;

(d) light motor vehicle; 2 [(e) transport vehicle;]

(i) road-roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description."

19. A perusal of the definition of "Light Motor Vehicle" under

Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reveals that it

includes transport vehicles, tractors, road rollers, or motor cars,

the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms. A

tractor, on the other hand, has been separately defined under the

Act as a 'motor vehicle' which is not itself constructed to carry any

load other than equipment used for propulsion, but excludes a

road roller. When both provisions are read together, it becomes

evident that a tractor, though separately defined, has already been

included within the broader definition of 'Light Motor Vehicle'. The

same is true for a motor car or road roller, which are separately

defined but nevertheless subsumed within the definition of 'Light

Motor Vehicle'.

20. In the present case, it is admitted that the unladen weight of

the tempo in question was only 1180 kilograms (which is clear

from the perusal of Registration Certificate), which is far below the

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (11 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

statutory limit of 7500 kilograms prescribed for a vehicle to fall

within the category of 'Light Motor Vehicle'. Thus, the said tempo

clearly qualifies as a 'Light Motor Vehicle'.

21. Section 10 of the Act of 1988 provides for the categories of

licenses that may be granted. As far as four-wheelers are

concerned, the categories specified are: (i) Invalid Carriage, (ii)

Light Motor Vehicle, (iii) Transport Vehicle, (iv) Road Roller, and

(v) Motor Vehicle of a specified description.

22. The definition of "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28) of the

Act reveals that a tractor does not fall within the general definition

of motor vehicle but has been separately defined for that purpose.

Nevertheless, it is expressly included within the definition of Light

Motor Vehicle under Section 2(21) of the Act of 1988. It is,

therefore, clear that there is no separate category of license

provided under the Act of 1988 exclusively for tractors. If a person

seeks a license to drive a tractor, he must necessarily apply for

and would obtain a license to drive a 'Light Motor Vehicle'.

23. In the present case, although the deceased's license

specifically mentioned entitlement to drive a tractor, such license

must be treated as a license to drive a 'Light Motor Vehicle'. This

interpretation flows directly from the statutory provisions referred

to above. Accordingly, the deceased was duly authorized to drive

the tempo in question, which fell within the category of Light

Motor Vehicle.

24. An identical issue came up for consideration before this

Hon'ble Court in the case of S.B. Misc. Appeal 4635/2015,

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company vs. Master Sonu &

Ors., wherein this Hon'ble Court, vide judgment dated

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (12 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

06.03.2024, while relying upon the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs

Oriental Ins.Co. Ltd, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298, held that if

a person was holding a license for driving a tractor, he could also

drive a transport vehicle such as a Jeep, and the same license

would be treated as a 'Light Motor Vehicle' until and unless the

weight of the vehicle in question is less than 7500 kg.

25. Furthermore, upon a reference made before the Larger

Bench for consideration of Mukund Devungum's (supra) case,

the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rambha

Devi, (supra), dealt with the entire provisions of the Act of 1988

and held that if a person was holding a license for a Light Motor

Vehicle, then he could drive a transport vehicle provided the

unladen weight of the transport vehicle is less than 7500 kg. The

Hon'ble Apex Court also considered the use of the word "means"

under Section 2(24) of the Act of 1988 and held as under:

"50. For our discussion, much turns on the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of the MV Act: "2. (21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or roadroller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kg;"

51. The term "transport vehicle", "gross vehicle weight", "motor car", "tractor", "roadroller", "unladen weight" and "gross vehicle weight" are also separately defined in the MV Act as noted earlier. In the context, Mr Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the Insurance Companies presented to us a visual 1-page representation of the definition of LMV which being useful, is reproduced below:

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (13 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

52. A plain reading of the definition clause of LMV as is also clear from the diagram above which shows that LMV, inter alia, "means" a "transport vehicle". The use of the word "means" is crucial here which suggests specifics. When the statute says that a word or a phrase shall "mean" (instead of say "include"), it is quite certainly a "hard-and-fast", strict and exhaustive definition. Such a definition is an explicit statement of the full connotation of a term. It is a clear signal that the legislature did not wish to maintain a distinction between the two classes of vehicles. Such an explicit and specific definition leaves no room for ambiguity.

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (14 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

106. Section 3 refers to "transport vehicles", like many other provisions in the MV Act and the MV Rules. Section 3 cannot however be construed as a special provision that would override the strict and emphatic definition of LMV, given in Section 2(21) and the separate class of "light motor vehicle" provided in Section

10. Section 2(21) uses the term "means" as earlier emphasised and there is an affirmation of certainty in the wordings of the definition and it is to be recognised sensu stricto in a technical sense and must not be understood loosely. To say that Section 3 would disentitle the LMV license-holders to drive transport vehicles of the permissible weight category, would be incompatible and would render the strict definition clause, sterile and a "dead letter". A harmonious construction of both sections can however reach us to a conclusion that for LMV license- holders, a separate endorsement under "transport vehicle" class would be unnecessary for driving LMV class of vehicles. In our interpretation and understanding, it would be logical to hold that the additional licensing requirements will have no application for the LMV class of vehicles but will be needed only for such "transport vehicles", which by virtue of their gross weight fall in the medium and heavy category. Such a construction would also fulfil the legislative purpose which is to ensure road safety by requiring only those individuals who intend to operate medium and heavy vehicles, to satisfy the additional licensing criteria. In our view, the age restrictions outlined in Section 4, the requirement of a medical certificate, and the criteria under Section 7 should reasonably apply only for the medium and heavy transport vehicles whose gross weight will be above 7500 kg. Such an interpretation would fulfil the objective of the MV Act to provide compensation to victims of road accidents while maintaining a commensurate licensing regime for drivers."

26. It is thus clear that there is no distinction between the tractor or road roller or a Light Motor Vehicle or a OMNI Bus including a transport vehicle until and unless the unladen weight of the same was less than 7500 Kgs. The Hon'ble Apex Court also dealt with the form which has been quoted in para 60 required to filled up for grant of driving license and held that there was no specification of transport vehicle in the form of question. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (15 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

"60. The applicant Sri would be required to fill Form 4, prescribed under Rule 14 of the MV Rules which was prevalent before 28-3-

2001. Form 4 is extracted below:

61. Form 4 above indicates that there is no mention of "transport vehicle" for the purpose of obtaining a driving licence. Moreover, there is no mention of a "light goods vehicle" or a "light passenger vehicle". Therefore, if Sri applies for a "light motor vehicle"

licence, which already means a "transport vehicle" as per the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21), can it be said that Sri cannot drive a "transport vehicle" because "his driving licence specifically" does not "entitle him so to do" as provided in the second part of Section 3? We think not. The specific authorisation

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19591] (16 of 17) [CMA-1667/2008]

should not be understood to mean that Sri holding an LMV licence which covers "transport vehicle", would be disentitled to drive a "transport vehicle". A question would then arise about the purpose of explicitly mentioning "transport vehicle" in Section 3 (and other provisions as we will discuss later)? We may notice that there is no mention of the term "light goods vehicle" or a "light passenger vehicle" in Section 10 or in the definition section. On the other hand, a separate mention of "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger vehicle" as incorporated in Section 10 would suggest that it is primarily targeted towards "transport vehicles"

as opposed to a "light motor vehicle", which as earlier noticed could also be a "Non-Transport Vehicle". The emphasis in the second part of Section 3 should therefore be understood in relation to medium and heavy vehicles in the statutory scheme even prior to the 1994 Amendment. The reasonable interpretation of the second part of Section 3 should therefore pertain to a driving licence for those driving "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle", and "heavy passenger vehicle". Such an interpretation and understanding would be logical because medium and heavy vehicles would require greater manoeuvrability and skill as compared to drivers of the LMV class. The subsequent amendment in Section 10 makes this position even clearer."

27. The same applies to a tractor also, as there is no

specification for license of the tractor in the form regarding the

types of licenses as specified under Section 10 of the Act of 1988.

It is thus clear that the interpretation sought to be drawn by the

learned counsel for the appellant would be contrary to the

legislative intent, by way of creating a class which was not

contemplated by the legislature itself. It can thus be specifically

held that if a person is holding a license to drive a tractor, it

includes a 'Light Motor Vehicle'; therefore, the license would be

valid for driving a Light Motor Vehicle, provided the unladen

weight is less than 7500 Kgs.

(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:25:03 AM)