265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2002-2002 FAO-5005-2004 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 1. FAO-2002-2002 RAMESH ... APPELLANT VS. MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS 2. FAO-5005-2004 MAHINDER SINGH ... APPELLANT VS. RAMESH AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate (through V.C.) for respondent(s)-Insurance Company. PARMOD GOYAL , J. (ORAL) Present appeals have been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the common impugned award dated 09.01.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) arising out of motor vehicular accident dated 23.11.2000, resulting from rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving tractor No. HR- 14/4528 (hereinafter referred to as “Offending Vehicle”), whereby the injured- claimant in FAO No.-5005-2004 was held entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.Claimant dissatisfied by quantum of compensation has approached this Court. However, vide the same impugned award, the learned Tribunal had held that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving license to drive the tractor and, accordingly, the entire liability was fixed upon CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 FAO-2002-2002 FAO-5005-2004 respondents No. 1 and 2 and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.3 was absolved from paying any compensation. 2. Respondent-driver being aggrieved by the said conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal, has preferred FAO No.2002 of 2002 against the impugned award wherein entire liability has been fixed upon respondents No.1 and 2. FAO No.2002 of 2002 3. In the present case, as far as the factum of the accident as well as rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent-driver are concerned, the same have been dealt with by the learned Tribunal in detailed manner. On consideration, I do not find any reason to deviate from the findings of learned Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent- driver of offending tractor. 4. The injured appellant-claimant himself appeared as PW-2 and had asserted that on 23.11.2000 at around 7.00 pm, while he was coming back on his motorcycle and had reached village Chandi on Rohtak Jind road, meanwhile tractor-trolley bearing No. HR-15-4528, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck his motorcycle due to which, he fell on the road and suffered multiple injuries. To counter his statement, Ramesh-respondent driver of offending vehicle (appellant in FAO No.2002 of 2002) appeared as RW-1 and denied the occurrence of the accident altogether. He pleaded false implication. He further stated that he had, in fact, gone to a saw mill and was not present at 7.30 pm on the spot where the accident occurred. However, on appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties on standard of proof applicable in such proceedings i.e. preponderance of probabilities and keeping in view the fact that respondent-driver was facing criminal trial without any CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 FAO-2002-2002 FAO-5005-2004 protest or complaint, the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the evidence of the injured appellant-claimant over the statement of RW-1, which is self serving and has come on record after a considerable lapse of time. 5. The findings recorded by learned Tribunal on issue No.1 cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. 6. The main issues raised by respondent-driver are whether the fastening of liability upon respondents No. 1 and 2 by the learned Tribunal is based on correct appreciation of the driving license and whether the injured- claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation. 7. Appellant-driver was holding valid licence to drive motorcycle car and jeep. He however was driving tractor with which accident had occurred. Question for consideration is whether he is entitled to drive tractor while holding license for car and jeep, now classified as light motor vehicle. 8. The issue as to whether a driving license issued for a light motor vehicle/car and jeep would cover transport, non-transport and vehicles having an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg is no longer res integra. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2025 (3) SCC 95, has duly considered this issue and has held as under:- “130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal - regardless of whether the vehicle falls into "Transport" or "Non-Transport" category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential com- mon man's driver Sri, with LMV license, can also drive a "Trans- port Vehicle". We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence holder, driving a CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 FAO-2002-2002 FAO-5005-2004 `Transport Vehicle', is a significant cause for road accidents in In- dia. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in MV Act and MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle (`medium goods vehicle', `medium passenger vehi- cle', `heavy goods vehicle' and `heavy passenger vehicle'), whose gross weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statu- tory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating "Transport vehicles" (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will sub- stantially address the vexed question of law before this Court. 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as un- der:- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehi- cle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to oper- ate a `Transport Vehicle' without needing additional autho- rization 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 eli- gibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, erickshaws, and vehicles carrying haz- ardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a `Trans- port 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 vehi- CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 FAO-2002-2002 FAO-5005-2004 cles' would apply only to those intending to operate vehi- cles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. `medium goods vehicle', `medium 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.” 9. In view of the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the tractor falls within the definition of a light motor vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg, it would fall within the definition of a car/jeep which are light motor vehicle for which respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving license. Therefore, respondent No.1 was authorized to drive the offending vehicle i.e. tractor and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner and driver of offending vehicle. 10. Accordingly, in the present case, the finding of learned Tribunal in this regard cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. It is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The liability of the respondents is, therefore, joint and several. Since the Insurance Company is under a contractual obligation to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and the employee/driver of respondent No.2, being the agent of respondent owner-appellant driver would also be entitled to be indemnified by respondent No.2 through respondent No.3. Accordingly, the primary liability to pay the compensation shall be upon the Insurance Company by way of indemnification of respondent No.2-appellant- driver. CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 FAO-2002-2002 FAO-5005-2004 FAO No.5005 of 2004 11. In present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :- Pain and Sufferings Rs.25,000/- Medical treatment including medicines, special diet, transportation and attendant etc. Rs.50,000/- Permanent disability suffered by the appellant to the extent of 60% on account of amputation of his right leg below the knee. Rs.1,25,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.2,00,000/- 12. As far as medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges and transportation expenses are concerned, the amount awarded by learned Tribunal cannot be interfered, as from the evidence led by appellant/claimant, no further enhancement could be justified. 13. Considering the nature and gravity of injuries, period of hospitalization (on two occasions) including permanent disability to the extent of 60% on account of amputation of right leg, an amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ deserves enhancement. Accordingly, the said amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 14. To prove permanent disability on account of amputation of right leg, appellant/claimant had placed reliance upon evidence of Dr. Roop Singh, who appeared as PW1 and had proved disability certificate (Ex.P1) showing disability of 60% on account of amputation of right leg which he had evaluated along with other members of the Board. 15. There is no rebuttal to the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1. This fact has been duly proved and has also been accepted by learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondents had failed to point out any reason for interference with the findings so recorded by learned Tribunal. CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 FAO-2002-2002 FAO-5005-2004 16. For determining loss of earning capacity, it is necessary to ascertain monthly income of appellant/claimant, his age for the purpose of calculating future prospects, extent of functional disability and appropriate multiplier to be applied. 17. It is the case of appellant/claimant that he was working as an Operator in the Irrigation Department at Jind Circle and drawing monthly salary of Rs.6,200/-. However, except for his oral assertions regarding his job and income, no other evidence was led. Neither employer, nor last pay certificate issued by a competent officer has been placed on record. In absence of any reliable and cogent evidence with regard to nature of job and income, income of appellant/claimant is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month keeping in view wages which can genrally be earned. Keeping in view non- availability of cogent evidence as regards to vocation of appellant/claimant, functional disability is assessed as 60% equivalent to permanent disability on account of amputation of right leg. 18. Appellant/claimant was 45 years old at the time of accident, therefore, while computing loss of earning capacity, future prospects to the extent of 25% are required to be added. This aspect has not been considered by learned Tribunal. Accordingly, loss of earning capacity is required to be recalculated after adding 25% towards future prospects. Multiplier of 14 is required to be applied for determining loss of earning capacity. 19. Loss of earning capacity has to be determined by taking income of appellant/claimant to be Rs.3,000/- and by applying 25% towards future prospects and multiplier of 14 by taking functional disability equivalent to 60%. 20. Considering the nature of injuries and period required for CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 FAO-2002-2002 FAO-5005-2004 recovery, it can be easily presumed that appellant/claimant would have been under treatment and was not able to earn his livelihood for six months, accordingly, appellant/claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.3,000 X 6) towards loss of income during treatment and recovery period. 21. Appellant/claimant who had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% on account of amputation of right leg, would also be entitled to compensation for loss of future amenities of life and future prospects. The compensation under these heads is quantified as Rs.50,000/-. 22. On account of amputation of right leg, appellant/claimant would require an artificial limb. Though no evidence has been placed on record regarding cost of artificial limb, considering the factum of amputation and the fact that appellant/claimant would require such aid in future, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded under the head ‘future medical expenses’. 23. Accordingly the reworked compensation payable to injured appellant-claimant is as under :- Income Rs.3,000/- p.m. Rs.3,000/- p.m. Functional disability 60% of Rs.3,000 Rs.1,800/- Future Prospects 25% (1,800+450) Rs.2,250/- Multiplier 14 14 Loss of earning capacity Rs.2,250 x 12 x 14 Rs.3,78,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs.25,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.50,000/- Medical treatment including medicines, special diet, transportation and attendant etc. Rs.50,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.50,000/- Future medical expenses Rs.1,50,000/- Loss of income during period of treatment Rs.18,000/- Loss of future amenities and loss of future prospects Rs.50,000/- CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 FAO-2002-2002 FAO-5005-2004 Total Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.2,00,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.6,78,000/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.6,78,000/- (as awarded in appeal) - Rs.2,00,000/- (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs.4,78,000/- 24. Appellants/claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. 25. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. 13.07.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL) smriti/chiranjeev JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document