FAO-2872-1999(O& FAO-2382-1999 (O& [225] [1] Jai Narain United Indi Limited and [2] Lila Wati a United Indi Limited and Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] captioned t the Commi [2] FAO-2872 [3] Commissio compensat 99(O&M) & (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-2872 Date of De arain versus ed India Insurance Company ted and others FAO-2382 Wati and others versus ed India Insurance Company ted and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA None for the appellant(s). Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate an for the respondent-Insurance C Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate and for the respondent-Insurance C **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of the instant order, oned two appeals preferred against O ommissioner under the Workmen’s Co FAO-2382-1999 is at the 2872-1999 is at the behest of the emp The employer is aggrieved o missioner, exonerating the insurance ensation, holding that deceased-Park T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 2872-1999 (O&M) of Decision : 16.02.2026 …Appellant ….Respondents 2382-1999 (O&M) …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN ate and Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocat ance Company in FAO-2872-1999. te and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate ance Company in FAO-2382-1999. rder, I intend to dispose off the afor inst Order dated 31.03.1999 passed b en’s Compensation Act, 1923. the behest of the claimants an e employer. eved of the findings recorded by th urance company from liability to pa Parkash Chand was holding drivin 1 dvocate vocate afore- ssed by s and by the to pay driving RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.25 10:27 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-2872-1999(O& FAO-2382-1999 (O& license tha tractor. T insurance p [4] through rec [5] validity of Court in th versus Ram Supreme C 99(O&M) & (O&M) se that authorized him to drive mo or. Thus, the vehicle i.e. tractor b ance policy. The insurer is not liable I have heard counsel for the gh record(s) of the case(s). In the considered opinion of th ity of a license in these circumstance t in the case of ‘M/s. Bajaj Allianc Rambha Devi and others’, report eme Court observed as under:- (I) A driver holding a licen class, under Section 10(2)(d) for under 7,500 kg, is permitted to o needing additional authorization Act specifically for the ‘Trans purposes, LMVs and Transport classes. An overlap exists betw requirements will however conti erickshaws, and vehicles carryin (II) The second part of Se necessity of a specific requirem does not supersede the definitio of the MV Act. (III) The additional eligibility MV Rules generally for driving ‘ to those intending to operate exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ a (IV) The decision in Mukund reasons as explained by us in th obtrusive omission, the decision e motorcycle/scooter/car/jeep and n ctor being driven in violation of th liable to pay compensation. or the parties and have carefully gon n of this Court, the issue with respect stances has been answered by Suprem lliance General Insurance Co. Lt reported as 2025(3) SCC 95, where license for Light Motor Vehicle (LM ) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weig to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ witho zation under Section 10(2)(e) of the M ransport Vehicle’ class. For licensin port Vehicles are not entirely separa between the two. The special eligibili continue to apply for, inter alia, e-car rying hazardous goods. f Section 3(1), which emphasizes t irement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle nition of LMV provided in Section 2(2 ility criteria specified in the MV Act an ing ‘transport vehicles’ would apply on ate vehicles with gross vehicle weig dium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passeng le’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. und Dewangan (2017) is upheld but f s in this judgment. In the absence of a sion is not per incuriam, even if certa 2 and not of the lly gone spect to upreme o. Ltd. wherein (LMV) weight ithout he MV ensing parate ibility carts, zes the hicle,’ 2(21) ct and ly only weight senger but for of any ertain RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.25 10:27 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-2872-1999(O& FAO-2382-1999 (O& [6] Chand auth tractor. exonerating claimants liable to pa [7] annum for i.e. 30 days if already p [8] of ‘Ved P 3854, liabil [9] off. [10] disposed of [11] 16.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 99(O&M) & (O&M) provisions of the MV Act and M said judgment.” In view thereof, the license d authorizing him to drive LMV cann or. Accordingly, the finding re erating the insurance company from s is set aside. Insurance Compa e to pay compensation to the claimants Insurance company is also held m for the period commencing from 3 0 days after 29.10.1996 till the date o eady paid shall be set off. In terms of ratio of law laid do ed Prakash Garg versus Prem De , liability has to be paid by the employ With the aforesaid observation All pending miscellaneous ed off. Photocopy of this order be plac .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable d MV Rules were not considered in t icense possessed by deceased-Parkas V cannot be held to be invalid viz-a- ng recorded by the Commissione y from paying compensation to th Company is held jointly and several imants along with the employer. so held liable to pay interest @ 12% p from 30 days after the date of accide date of actual realization. The amou aid down by Supreme Court in the cas m Devi’ reported as 1997 AIR (SC mployer. rvations, both the appeals are dispose neous application(s), if any, stand be placed on the file of connected case (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 in the Parkash -viz issioner, to the everally 12% per accident amount the case R (SC) isposed stands d case. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.25 10:27 I agree to specified portions of this document