[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jhunjhar Singh And Anr vs Smt.Guddi And Ors. (2026:Rj-Jd:4588) on 21 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:4588]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1578/2008

1. Jhunjhar Singh, s/o Shri Deep Singh, age 40 years, R/O
Shrevat Singh's Dhani, Jaisalmer
2. Tanej Raj Singh alias Tanesingh s/o Visrajsingh caste Rajput
R/O Nooraniyon ka Paar, Sundara Tehsil Shiv District Barmer
currently R/O Renwatsingh ki Dhani Jaisalmer District, Jaisalmer
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1. Smt. Guddi wife of Dharuram
2. Ms. Kali, daughter of Dharuram, age 10 years
3. Ashok son of Dharuram, age 08 years
4. Vikram son of Dharuram, age 07 years
        R/O village Sodha, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer,
currently R/O CAD Colony, Totaram Ki Dhani Ward No. 12,
Myajlar Road, Jaisalmer, Respondent No. 2 to 4 minors through
natural mother Smt. Guddi.
5. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Office- Jodhpur
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. T.R.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. D.S. Nimla



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

21/01/2026

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed against the

judgment/award dated 18.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer ("learned Tribunal"), in MAC Case No.

65/2006, whereby respondent-claimants were held entitled for

payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,03,000/- and

liability to pay was fastened upon appellants with interest @7.5%

per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:14:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4588] (2 of 7) [CMA-1578/2008]

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are

that on 08.08.2006, at about 08:30 am, the deceased, namely,

Mr. Dharu Ram was travelling in a tempo bearing registration no.

RJ-15-PA-0057. The said vehicle was driven by Mr. Tanej Raj

Singh, who was driving rashly and negligently. Consequently, the

vehicle lost control and overturned which resulted in the death of

Mr. Dharu Ram. The said vehicle was insured by the respondent-

insurer.

3. A claim petition was filed on 18.09.2006 by legal

representatives of the deceased before the Tribunal claiming

compensation to the tune of Rs.29,50,000/. It was submitted that

deceased was a labourer, earning Rs.6,000/- per month.

4. On basis of pleadings of the parties, Tribunal settled 5 issues

for determination. With regard to issue no. 1, Tribunal examined

various evidence on record and held that driver of the offending

vehicle was indeed driving rashly and negligently.

5. With regard to issues no. 2 and 4, the liability to pay

compensation, was fastened upon the driver and the owner of the

vehicle on the ground that there was a violation of the terms and

conditions of the Policy as vehicle was driven by the driver

possessing a license only to drive a Light Motor Vehicle ("LMV"),

whereas the vehicle was a commercial vehicle. On such finding,

the Tribunal exonerated the respondent-insurer while observing

that appellant-driver was not having a valid licence for a

commercial vehicle, which resulted in violation of the Policy.

6. Learned Tribunal vide its order dated 18.07.2007, awarded

compensation to respondent claimants amounting to

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:14:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4588] (3 of 7) [CMA-1578/2008]

Rs.7,03,000/- and the liability to pay, was fastened upon the

appellants along with interest @7.5% per annum from date of

filing the claim petition.

7. The present appeal is, confined to a challenge against

Tribunal's finding of exonerating the respondent-insurer and

holding appellants liable to pay the said compensation. Appellant

does not challenge the quantum of compensation as awarded by

learned tribunal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for appellants submits that

Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer from its liability to

pay compensation and in directing the appellants to pay

compensation. It is contended that once the driver was holding a

valid driving licence to drive an LMV, no separate or additional

endorsement was required for driving a goods vehicle. Therefore,

he submits, that there is no violation of the insurance policy.

9. He further submits, that the finding of learned Tribunal

regarding issues no. 2 and 4 is contrary to the law laid down in

Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

(2017) 14 SCC 663.

10. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-

Insurance Company, submits that there was breach of conditions

of the policy of the insurance company as driver of the offending

vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence to ply the

commercial vehicle in question, as he was only having the licence

to ply light motor vehicle only. Thus, the learned Tribunal was

justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant herein and the

said judgment warrants no interference from this court.

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:14:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4588] (4 of 7) [CMA-1578/2008]

11. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and

perused the documents on record.

12. This Court finds merit in appellant's contentions. Record of

the case reveals that though the offending vehicle is a commercial

vehicle and the driver thereof, at the time of accident, was holding

a valid LMV license under Section 10(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988, yet, in view of the fact that the gross vehicle weight of

the said vehicle does not exceed 7,500 kg, the driver is held to be

duly and validly licensed to drive the same, irrespective of the

nature / use of the vehicle.

13. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates that a

driver must possess a driving licence in respect of the class of

vehicle and not for a particular type thereof. A single class may

comprise different kinds of vehicles, and so long as they fall within

the same class, no separate or specific endorsement is required to

drive each particular kind of vehicle. Furthermore, the classes of

Light Motor Vehicles and transport vehicles overlap, and,

therefore, no separate authorization is required for driving a goods

transport vehicle.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan (Supra)

held that a person holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle

is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus of that same

weight class. There is no statutory requirement to obtain a

separate endorsement specifically to drive such a transport

vehicle. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced

hereunder:

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:14:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4588] (5 of 7) [CMA-1578/2008]

"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 28-3-2001. 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 1989 Rules, 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 Sections 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed.

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 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 roadroller, "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 roadroller, the "unladen weight" of

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:14:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4588] (6 of 7) [CMA-1578/2008]

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 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form."

15. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj

Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi

Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024 has upheld

the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) and

thus, the requirement of having a separate license to drive the

said offending vehicle was not required as the respondent-driver

was having the driving licence of light motor vehicle category.

Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:

"....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 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

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:14:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4588] (7 of 7) [CMA-1578/2008]

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. ....."

16. In this view, the findings of Tribunal regarding issues no. 2

and 4 is erroneous and clearly against the law laid down in

Mukund Dewangan (Supra) and so also in Rambha Devi

(Supra). Thus, the same cannot be allowed to stand, hereby set

aside.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed to the

extent of exonerating the respondent-insurer by learned Tribunal

on the ground that driver did not have a valid driving licence for

commercial vehicle. Respondent-insurer is held liable and hence,

hereby directed to make payment of the quantum of

compensation awarded by learned Tribunal i.e., Rs.7,03,000/-

within a period of two months from the date of this order along