RA-CR-33 FAO-7447 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 250 1. LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/S JAI RAM AND OTHERS 2. JAI RAM V/S PARVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J 1. are being applicant/Insurance Company seeking review of order dated passed by this Court in FAO applicant/appellant claimant; whe of ₹2,86,636/ ₹5,29,836/- -2023 (O&M) in 7447-2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CR-33-2023 (O&M) FAO-7447-2016 LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/S JAI RAM AND OTHERS RA-CR-34-2023 (O&M) in FAO-1749-2017 JAI RAM V/S PARVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the applicant/appellant-Insurance Company (in CM-4317-CII-2023 in/and RA 7447-2016) and for applicant/respondent No. 3 (in CM-4316-CII-2023 in/and RA 1749-2017). Mr. Simranpreet Advocate for Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the claimant NIDHI GUPTA, J.(ORAL) By this common order, 02 aforementioned review applications are being disposed of as, both have been filed by the review applicant/Insurance Company seeking review of order dated passed by this Court in FAO-7447-2016 which was filed by the review applicant/appellant-Insurance Company; and FAO ; whereby claimant’s appeal was partly allowed and compensation 2,86,636/- granted by the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh was enhanced to -. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (O&M) in LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (O&M) in JAI RAM V/S PARVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate Insurance Company 2023 in/and RA-CR-33-2023 in FAO- for applicant/respondent No. 3 2023 in/and RA-CR-34-2023 in FAO- Mr. Simranpreet Advocate for Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. ma, Advocate for rora, Advocate for the claimant. By this common order, 02 aforementioned review applications both have been filed by the review- applicant/Insurance Company seeking review of order dated 05.12.2022 2016 which was filed by the review- and FAO-1749-2017 filed by the appeal was partly allowed and compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh was enhanced to By this common order, 02 aforementioned review applications 12.2022 2017 filed by the appeal was partly allowed and compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh was enhanced to RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.18 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-33 FAO-7447 2. review-applicant/Insurance Company (in bo aforementioned review applications may be disposed of judgment of Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi and others, 2661595, wherein it has been held that drive a “Transport Vehicle” case, the offending vehicle being Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) Vehicle Licence. applicant/Insurance Company for recovery rights is no longer maintainable. 3. and 3 as well as the claimant of learned counsel for the review 4. 5. applicant/Insurance Company as noted above, both review applications are 6. shall also stand disposed of. 7. connected case. 16.09.2025 rishu -2023 (O&M) in 7447-2016 -2- At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company (in bo aforementioned review applications may be disposed of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi and others, wherein it has been held that a man with LMV licence, can also drive a “Transport Vehicle”. Learned counsel submits that in the present the offending vehicle being a three- Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) Licence and did not require a Transport Licence. Therefore, it is submitted that applicant/Insurance Company for recovery rights is no longer maintainable. Learned counsel for the non as well as the claimant have not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the review-applicant/Insurance Company. Heard. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company as noted above, both review applications are accordingly disposed of, Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company (in both cases) that both the aforementioned review applications may be disposed of, as per latest Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi and others, Law Finder Doc Id # a man with LMV licence, can also . Learned counsel submits that in the present -wheeler can be driven with an icence and did not require a Transport Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer of the review- applicant/Insurance Company for recovery rights is no longer Learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent(s) No. 2 have not disputed the aforesaid submissions applicant/Insurance Company. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the review- applicant/Insurance Company as noted above, both the aforementioned disposed of, being not maintainable. Pending application(s), if any (in both review applications), A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the th cases) that both the as per latest General Law Finder Doc Id # a man with LMV licence, can also . Learned counsel submits that in the present be driven with an icence and did not require a Transport applicant/Insurance Company for recovery rights is no longer No. 2 have not disputed the aforesaid submissions the aforementioned , A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.18 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.