{1} FA 2142 OF 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2142 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12839 OF 2015 IN FA/2142/2013 . United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office – I, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ….Appellant Versus 1. Leelabai Gangadhar Narwade Age: 50 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. Dhorkin, Tq. Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. 2. Kadu @ Kaduba s/o Nana Narwade Age: 75 yrs., Occu.: Nil, R/o. As above. 3. Kalabai w/o Kaduba Narwade Age: 70 yrs., Occu.: Household, R/o. As above. 4. Raju s/o Gangadhar Narwade Age: 26 yrs., Occu.: Household, R/o. As above. 5. Vijay s/o Gangadhar Narwade Age: 23 yrs., Occu.: Household, R/o. As above. 6. Deepak s/o. Gangadhar Narwade Age: 22 yrs., Occ.: Household, R/o. As above. 7. Nandlal s/o Topa Rathod Age: Major, Occu.: Business, R/o. Dongaon, Post.Balanagar, Tq.Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 8. Dnyaneshwar s/o Hema Rathod 2026:BHC-AUG:11883 {2} FA 2142 OF 2013 Age: Major, Occu.: Driver, R/o. Dongaon, Tekadi Tanda, Tq. Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. …..Respondents (Resp.No.1 to 6 are ori. claimants) ….. Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi Advocate for Respondent nos.1, 3 to 6 : Ms.Vijayalaxmi Pathrikar h/f. Mr.R.V.Gore Advocate for Respondent nos.7 & 8 : Mr.V.R. Jain and Mr.T.S. Chavare (absent) ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 11 MARCH, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 18 MARCH, 2026 JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal by Insurance Company taking exception to the judgment and award dated 18-09-2012 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in MACP No.866 of 2007, which was a death claim petition by legal heirs of deceased Gangadhar. As per record, respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. Kadu @ Kaduba Nana Narwade and Kalabai Kadhuba Narwade have expired and their legal heirs are already on record. 2. Mr.Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant briefed this Court about background i.e. legal heirs of deceased filed above claim petition on the premise that on 31-10-2007, while deceased was {3} FA 2142 OF 2013 proceeding on his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.MH-20 AH- 3587, he was given dash by a Tractor bearing No.MH-20 AB-1691 causing him fatal injuries and death of Gangadhar. Therefore, his legal heirs set up a claim for compensation by invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Learned counsel pointed out that, in said claim petition, present appellant was arraigned as one of the respondents and vide above judgment and award, respondent nos.1 to 3 were made to pay compensation jointly and severally to the tune of Rs.12,98,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Learned counsel further pointed out that, in the written statement and pleadings before the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company has taken a specific plea that driver of the Tractor was not having valid and effective licence and as such it amounted to breach of policy and therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. That, even plea was taken that there was no endorsement permitting driver of the Tractor to attach trolley and therefore, in the light of above, it is his submission that Insurance Company ought not to have been made jointly and severally liable with owner and driver. Therefore, he questions and criticizes finding of learned Tribunal that Insurance {4} FA 2142 OF 2013 Company failed to prove that there was no valid and effective driving licence. 4. While answering the above, learned counsel for respondents/original claimants would submit that in view of recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, AIROnline 2024 SC 864, there is no error on the part of the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned judgment and order and directing all the respondents to jointly and severally pay the compensation. 5. The sole ground on which appeal is preferred is that of non- consideration of pleadings of the Insurance Company in the learned Tribunal about driver of Tractor not holding effective and valid driving licence. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has placed on record ruling in Rambha Devi (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has touched and dealt on various aspects of licences of Light Motor Vehicles and Transport Vehicles with and without additional authorization. In paragraph 131, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : {5} FA 2142 OF 2013 “131. A driver holding a licence 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.” Therefore, in the light of above, there is no merit in the appeal and hence, the same deserves to be dismissed for want of merits. Accordingly, following order is passed : ORDER (I) First Appeal is dismissed. (II) Respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount lying in this Court alongwith interest accrued thereon. Accordingly, Civil Application No.12839 of 2015 is disposed of. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT