1 / 16 2025:CGHC:18536 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 946 of 202 0 • Alendra Bhagat S/o Shri Ghansiram Aged About 30 Years Caste - Uraon, Resident Of Village Bimda, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/ Claimant versus 1. Madan Yadav S/o Ramratan By Caste Ahir, Resident Of Village Dhanapath, Post Kamarima, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Awadh Kumar Yadav S/o Bigan Yadav By Caste Ahir, Resident Of Village Dhanapath, Post Kamarima, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited Local Branch Office Shop No. 205, 2nd Minium Office, Mahaveer Nagar, Ring Road No. 01, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 24/04/2025 1. This case is listed on I.A. No. 03/2021, application for condonation of delay in filing cross objection. Office note dated 25.01.2022 would show that after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022, the cross objection is filed within time. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 16 2. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that he is not pressing I.A. No. 03/2021 seeking condonation of delay in filing cross objection. 3. In view of above, I.A. No. 03/2021 stands dismissed as not pressed. 4. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally at the admission stage. 5. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 08.01.2020 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 45/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 readwith Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking compensation in injury case in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 3,64,842/- as compensation in a death case, holding the Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Driver and the Owner of the offending vehicle liable to satisfy the amount of compensation recording a finding that there was breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle but the licence which is produced was the licence permitting Respondent No. 1 to drive the Light Motor Vehicle and Motor Cycle with gear. 6. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 25.12.2017 appellant on his motorcycle CD Deluxe No. CG14-CP-5562 was riding to Baghicha from village Bimda, when he reached near Tahsil Chowk Bagicha, near Lota Seth Godown, at that relevant point of time, a pickup vehicle No. JH07-E-2488 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) coming towards Tahsil from Bagicha, driven by non-applicant no. 1 rashly and negligently while turning the vehicle to the right towards the godown without signaling, hit the appellant and caused an accident, due to which the appellant suffered fracture of left leg along with other injuries. He took treatment at Bagicha, Ambikapur and then Shri Narayana Hospital, Raipur. 3 / 16 7. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 and 140 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 7,50,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident appellant was aged about 30 years, was an able bodied person. He was earning ₹ 15,000/- per month by working as mason and ₹ 1,00,000/- per year from agriculture activities. There is possibility that the percentage of disability suffered by him may increase in future and he would not be able to do masonry and agriculture work. 8. Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 / Respondent No. 1 & 2 -Driver and the owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the claim application denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that appellant has arbitrarily estimated the claim amount on the basis of presumption with the intention of obtaining excessive compensation amount. Appellant has not submitted any cogent piece of document regarding his income, age and work. The application seeking claim submitted by the appellant is prima facie not applicable under Section 140, 166 of the Act of 1988. It is stated that the vehicle driven by non- applicant no. 1 and owned by non-applicant no. 2 was not involved in accident. It is stated that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant no. 3 and if the offending vehicle is found involved in the alleged accident, then the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 9. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that the information of the alleged accident has been given late. The accident is of 25.12.2017, information of the accident was given to the police station on 22.02.2018, which makes it clear that the vehicle driven by non-applicant No. 1 was not involved in accident. The accident was a result of self negligence of applicant/appellant. There was 4 / 16 contributory negligence on the part of applicant/ appellant. It is stated that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, there was no effective and valid insurance on the date of the accident. The offending vehicle was being driven in violation of conditions of insurance policy. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant/ claimant suffered permanent disability because of injuries suffered in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy was found to be proved. Contributory negligence was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicants No. 1 & 2/ driver and the owner liable to pay the compensation, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 3,64,842/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 11. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20% only, overlooking the disability certificate of appellant Ext. A-1 and the evidence of Dr. Anuranjan Toppo, AW-1, wherein it is categorically mentioned and stated by the doctor that the appellant suffered 40% permanent disability. He also submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased as ₹ 4,500/- per month overlooking the date of accident ie., 25.12.2017 and even if the nature of occupation of appellant is to be treated as unskilled labourer then the monthly wage on the date of accident will be much more. He contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the head of pains and sufferings, special diet, transportation etc., hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 5 / 16 12. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would further submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not call for any interference. He further submits that Respondents No. 1 & 2 have also filed cross objection challenging the liability fastened upon them on the ground that on the date of accident driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid and effective driving licence. He contended that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal with respect to Respondent No. 1 not possessing valid and effective driving licence is erroneous. He submits that when once the Claims Tribunal has considered and recorded a finding that the Respondent No. 1/ driver was having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and motorcycle with gear then he was also competent to drive light goods vehicle and light transport vehicle. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal escaped consideration of the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on this point. 13. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant as also the submission of counsel for Respondent No. 1 & 2 on exoneration of the insurance company from liability to satisfy the amount of compensation. He contended that as per the definition of Transport Vehicle under Section 2(47) of the Act of 1988, separate endorsement is necessary in the licence to drive the transport vehicle which was absent in the license possessed by Respondent No. 1, hence learned Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that on the date of accident, Respondent No. 1/ driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. He also contended that the 6 / 16 amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 15. Sofar as the submission of learned counsel for appellant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has assessed loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20% instead of 40% is concerned, perusal of record of the claim case would show that the doctor who issued the disability certificate, Ext. A-1, is examined as AW-1, Dr. Anuranjan Toppo, the disability certificate Ext. A-1 was issued by the Medical Board. Perusal of Ext. A-1 would show that the certificate recommended for one year, it was issued on 06.03.2018 and valid upto 06.03.2019. Doctor- AW-1 in his evidence has stated that all the injuries suffered by injured was of curable in nature, however, on the question put by the court he submitted that the injury cannot be recovered to pre accidental condition. Claims Tribunal on appreciation of the disability certificate and the evidence of Dr. has assessed loss of earning capacity of appellant to the extent of 20% which in the opinion of this Court is properly appreciated based on the evidence available on record in this regard, hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding. The submission of learned counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the earning capacity to the extent of 20% is not sustainable and it is repelled. 16. Sofar as the second submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to monthly income assessed by the Claims Tribunal for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation on the ground of permanent disability is concerned, undisputedly the date of accident was 25.12.2017, though there is pleading in the claim application that the appellant was working as Mason and earning ₹ 15,000/- per month, however, the said fact 7 / 16 could not be proved by him by placing admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased on notional basis. Even if the claimant failed to prove the nature of occupation and income then it is for the Claims Tribunal/ Court to treat the claimant as an ordinary labourer and ought to have assessed the income taking note of the wage structure prevailing in the area, price index, cost of living and it can also take help of the notification issued by the competent authority-cum-Labour Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act fixing the minimum wages for the skilled, semiskilled and unskilled labourer. The date of accident is 25.12.2017 and for that period the wages fixed for an unskilled labourer, as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, is ₹ 7,800/- per month for the C-Class City. Appellant is resident of district Jashpur and therefore in the opinion of this Court even if the occupation of appellant is taken to be an unskilled labourer, his monthly income can be assessed as ₹ 7,800/-. it is ordered accordingly. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 while considering the award of compensation towards the future prospects in the case of permanent disability has held that the claimant who suffered permanent disability is also entitled for the loss of future prospects and held thus:- “ 14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.” In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the injured/claimant who suffered permanent disability, is entitle for addition of 8 / 16 loss of future prospects based on the age of the deceased as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 18. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹ 77,942/- towards medical bills considering the documentary evidence and medical bills placed in this regard. Learned counsel for appellant could not able to point out that any of the medical bill(s) placed before the Claims Tribunal has escaped consideration, hence, in the opinion of this Court, award of ₹ 77,942/- towards medical expenses is correct and does not call for any interference. 19. Learned Claims Tribunal has considered that the appellant could not have work for about 03 months, however, has awarded only ₹ 9,000/- towards special diet, considering the nature of injury and cost of living, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation towards special diet from ₹ 9,000/- to ₹ 15,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. Tribunal has awarded ₹ 9,000/- towards attendant considering that the appellant required attendant for about 3 months, however, the expenditure towards attendant has been taken as ₹ 3,000/- per month which in the opinion of this Court, in view of the aforementioned discussion with respect to minimum wages of a labourer, is on lower side, accordingly it is held that the cost of attendant would be taken as ₹ 5,000/- per month ie., ₹ 15,000/- towards attendant for a period of 03 months. It is ordered accordingly. The award of compensation towards conveyance is ₹ 5,300/-, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the said amount considering the documentary evidence placed on record, however, looking to the nature of injury, it may be possible that all the bills or tickets could not have been submitted before the Claims Tribunal, therefore, to award just compensation for the conveyance, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 10,000/- instead of ₹ 5,300/-. It is ordered accordingly. Sofar as, award of compensation under the heads of pain and sufferings of ₹ 20,000/- is 9 / 16 concerned, the doctor (AW-1) has categorically stated that permanent disability suffered by the appellant could not be cured and will not recover to pre accident condition. The nature of injury suffered by appellant is of fracture on left knee bone and the bone came out of the skin. In view of the nature of injury suffered and also permanent disability, in the opinion of this Court award of ₹ 20,000/- towards pains and suffering is on lower side, hence, it is enhanced to ₹ 30,000/-. Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 30,000/- for future treatment which in the opinion of this Court does not call for any interference as also award of ₹ 10,000/- towards repairing of motorcycle. Award of ₹ 20,000/- for loss of amenities due to permanent disability is concerned, looking to the evidence of doctor and the medical document, disability certificate, in the opinion of this Court award of ₹ 20,000/- is on lower side. Appellant on the date of accident was aged about 30 years and he has to live his whole life thereafter with the disability and therefore in the facts of the case, amount of compensation under the head of loss of amenities is enhanced to ₹ 30,000/-. 20. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants which is as under. 21. Income of deceased is assessed as ₹ 7,800/- per month ie. ₹ 93,600/- per annum. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 1,31,040/-. Upon applying multiplier of 17 (for the age group from 26 to 30 years) to the annual income as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, total income will come to ₹ 22,27,680/- [₹ 1,31,040x17]. As this Court has assessed the loss of 10 / 16 earning of the appellant to the extent of 20% and therefore, 20% of the income would come to ₹ 4,45,536/- (20% of ₹ 22,27,680). 22. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 6,23,478/- [₹ 4,45,536 + ₹ 77,942+ ₹ 15,000 + ₹ 15,000+ ₹10,000 + ₹ 30,000+ ₹ 30,000] instead of ₹ 3,64,842/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 23. Sofar as the grounds raised in the cross objection by the counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 is concerned, undisputedly Respondent No. 1 was possessing the license to drive light motor vehicle and motorcycle with gear and he was found driving light goods vehicle/light transport vehicle. Learned Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company only on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid licence as there is no endorsement in the license to drive the transport vehicle. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel, I find it appropriate to extract relevant provisions of the Act of 1988 herein below. Section 2 (21) of the Act of 1988 defines 'light motor vehicle', which reads thus:- (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; 24. Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1988 deals with driving license requirement and the same is extracted below for ready reference: “3.Necessity for driving licence.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him 11 / 16 authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 3[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 25. Section 10 deals with form and contents of license to drive, which is reproduced below for ready reference:- “10. Form and contents of licences to drive.—(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence 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 licence or, as the case may be, driving licence 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.” 26. Prior to amendment in Section 10 (2) (e) of the Act of 1988, the vehicles as mentioned in Section 10 (2) (e) to (h) were mentioned in the Statute. Vehicles mentioned under Section 10 (2) (e) to (h) have been included in transport vehicle by virtue of amendment under Section 10 (2) (e). A bare perusal of the definition as provided under sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 would show that light motor vehicles include 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. In the definition of 'light motor vehicles', two categories of vehicles 12 / 16 have clearly been mentioned, one is transport vehicle or omnibus for which their gross vehicle weight is to be considered to be less than 7500 kilogram and not only unladen weight is to be considered. As per Section 2 (15) of the Act of 1988, for the purpose of gross vehicle weight, the total weight of any vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle is to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the specific definition of gross vehicle weight provided under Section 2 (15) of the Act of 1988, total weight of offending vehicle, load certified and registered by the registering authority, it is clear that gross vehicle weight of the offending vehicle was not exceeding 7500 kilogram. 27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & ors, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 95, has taken note of its decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), and observed thus:- “164. The court analysed those key provisions of the Act and Rules and reached a conclusion which is aligned with the discussion and opinion in this judgment. It rightly concluded as under: “60...60.1 “(i) ‘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 Section 2 (15) and 2 (48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.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 road roller, ‘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 road-roller, the “unladen weight” of 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 13 / 16 vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10 (2) (d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. 60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10 (2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10 (2) (e), medium passenger motor vehicle in Section 10 (2) (f) heavy goods vehicle in Section 10 (2) (g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in Section 10 (2) (h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in Section 10 (2) (e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Section Section 10 (2) (d) and Section 2 (41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. 60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. 165.It is true that Mukund Dewangan (2017) did not analyse the provisions that distinguish transport and non- transport vehicles, as noted in the reference orders. The statutory scheme of MV is more nuanced than the simple weight-based distinction made in the said judgment. Moreover, the Court failed to notice Section31 (2) and 31 (3) which specify ‘Transport’ and ‘Non-Transport’ vehicles. However, the judgment gave due consideration to the important statutory provisions. We have carefully looked at the relevant and the wide ranging provisions in our analysis in this decision. A harmonious interpretation, as we have explained earlier, would lead us to the same conclusion but fortified with some additional reasoning based on the consideration of all the relevant provisions. The overlooked provisions would not, in our considered opinion, alter the eventual pronouncement. Importantly, we do not notice any glaring error or omission that would alter the outcome of the case. Therefore, the ratio in Mukund Dewangan (2017) should not be disturbed by applying the principles of per incuriam.” 14 / 16 28. In case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in Para 60.4 that even after amendment the definition of light motor vehicle continues to be same as it was and it has not been changed and there is no requirement of obtaining separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle of such category as mentioned above. In case of Rambha Devi (supra) also, Hon'ble Supreme Court based on discussion made therein, has concluded as under: “181. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- 181.1. 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. 181.2 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. 181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in theMV 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 passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. 181.4 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.” 29. In case of Rambha Devi (supra), the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the issue for consideration in Para-1, relevant portion of which reads as under:- 15 / 16 “1…….In this context, the pivotal legal issue that this Constitution bench of five judges has to decide is whether under the existing legal framework of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, “MV Rules”), a person holding a license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class, can drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without a specific endorsement, provided the ‘Gross Vehicle Weight’ of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 kgs?…..” 30. In case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and Rambha Devi (supra), the consideration was whether a transport vehicle driven by the driver holding license to drive light motor vehicles without specific endorsement is authorized to drive transport vehicle provided gross vehicle weight of vehicle does not exceed 7500 kilogram. The weight of a vehicle and load certified by the registering authority is the consideration for the purpose of gross vehicle weight. In case at hand, Respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle ie.,a pickup vehicle, thus the gross vehicle weight of offending vehicle does not exceed 7500 kilogram and therefore, respondent No.1 herein, who was possessing driving license to drive light motor vehicle and motorcycle with gear, was authorized to drive the offending vehicle whose gross vehicle weight is not more than 7500 kilogram, as per Section 2 (21) of the Act of 1988, without any further endorsement. 31. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the Respondent No. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle was not competent to drive transport vehicle and therefore the said finding of the Claims Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the Respondent No. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle on the date of accident was competent to drive light goods vehicle (light transport vehicle) with the licence possessed by him authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle and motorcycle with gear. As the Respondent No. 1 is authorized to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, therefore, this Court finds no breach of conditions of insurance policy and hence the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the 16 / 16 insurance company is not sustainable and it is set aside. As the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 3, in the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion made above, Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. 32. In the result, the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation filed by claimants is allowed in terms of para-22 of this order and the cross objection is allowed in terms of para-31. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn