1 2025:CGHC:15436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1189 of 2018 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ........Non Applicant No. 3. --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Khileshwari Sahu Wd/o Late Chintamani Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Girdhar Bekari, Ramnagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...........Applicant No.1. 2 - Ku. Khusali Sahu D/o Late Chintamani Sahu Aged 2.5 Years. Minor Through Her Mother Smt. Khileshwari Sahu Res. No. 1. R/o Near Girdhar Bekari, Ramnagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............Applicant No. 2, 3 - Punitram Sahu S/o S/o Late Keshoram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Near Girdhar Bekari, Ramnagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. …. Applicant No. 3, 4 - Tushar Sahu S/o Late Chintamani Sahu, Aged 1.5 Years. Minor Through His Mother Smt. Khileshwari Sahu Res. No. 1 R/o Near Girdhar Bekari, Ramnagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............Applicant No. 4. 5 - Aashish Dhiwar S/o S/o Pappu Dhiwar Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 No. 02, Near Pond, Kota,, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............Non Applicant No. 1. 6 - Mamta Baghmar W/o W/o Narad Baghmar R/o Near Ramdarbar, Kota, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .........Non Applicant No. 2. --- Respondents For the appellants : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None for the respondents. (Hon’ble Shri justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 02/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award 17.04.2018 passed by the VIII Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) in Claim Case No.500/2015 awarding compensation of Rs.45,54,498/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization in favour of the claimants. 2. The gist of the claim before the Claims Tribunal, in brief, was that on 10.05.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., when the deceased Chintamani Sahu was going on his motorcycle alongwith a pillion rider Tukaram Pal, on the way, near village Chachanpairi, respondent no.5 who was rashly and negligently driving the offending vehicle i.e., Tata Ace FX bearing Regn.No. C.G.04/JA- 4635 dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, Chintamani Sahu suffered grievous injuries and died during treatment. It is stated that pillion rider Tukaram Pal sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants who are the wife & Children and father of the deceased Chintamani Sahu 3 preferred application before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 56,00,000/-. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,54,498/- with interest @ 8% per anuum from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants for the irreparable loss. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company against which this appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the vehicle involved in the accident was a light goods vehicle (LGV) whereas on the date of accident, the driver was holding a licence of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). He submits that there has been a breach of Insurance Policy conditions as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Hence, learned counsel for the insurance Company prays for allowing the appeal by exonerating the insurance Company from its liability. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the finding of the Tribunal regarding liability is just and proper and does not require any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, the driver was having an LMV licence whereas he was driving a light goods vehicle (LGV) i.e., a transport vehicle, therefore, there was a clear breach of insurance policy condition. 7. The issue with respect to persons having a particular class of license authorising to drive a particular type of vehicle, but on the date of accident 4 found driving the vehicle other than the type of vehicle mentioned in the licence, but of the same category, has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and held as under :- “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 kind 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 28.03.2001. 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 Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms 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 Section 10(2)(3) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. 60. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: 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 No.54 of 1994. 60.2 A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross 5 vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs 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 vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.03.2001 in the form. 60.3 The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (3) 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 excflude transport vehicle, from the purview of Section 10(2)(d) and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e., light motor vehicle. 8. Coming to the facts of the present case, perusal of Ex.D-2 would reflect that the driver of the offending vehicle had a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) which was valid from 19.02.2015 to 11.02.2035. The accident took place on 10.05.2015. As such, the driver had valid LMV Licence at the time of accident. As per the provisions of Section 2(21) of MV Act, all vehicles whose weight is less than 7500 Kgs., are to be treated as ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. Perusal of Ex.D-1 (particulars of registration) would show that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 815 Kgs and as per the Insurance Policy (Ex.D-4) the gross weight was 1550 kgs i.e., less than 7500 Kgs. Therefore, the offending vehicle would fall under LMV category and the driver at the time of accident was having a licence to drive 6 Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). Even otherwise, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the said contention of the Insurance Company would not be sustainable. 9. Hence, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the finding of the Tribunal that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and there was no breach of insurance policy conditions, therefore, the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. 10. Thus the appeal of the Insurance Company being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao