1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 948 of 2018 H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 3rd Floor, Chawla Complex Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Co. Insurance Policy No. 2315 2007 0512 5300 000 (Engine No. B591083231G63338566) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Lalita Agrawal Wd/o Late Shri Premsukh Agrawal Aged About 55 Years (Deleted Due To Death) 2 - Shiba Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Premsukh Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o C/o Premsukh Agrawal, Near Uco Bank, Kusumpuri, Post Bhatli, District Bargarh (Odisha) Pin No. 768030 (Claimant) 3 - Samay Lal Satnami S/o Shri Bhuwanlal Satnami Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Dondekhurd, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Hiwa Dumper No. Cg 06 M 0805) 4 - M/s Cheema Local Carrier And Construction R/o Ward No.1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Road, Mahasamund Thana Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Hiwa Dumper No. Cg 06 M 0805) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondents : None YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.06 19:22:58 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 04.11.2025 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.239/2015, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application of the claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants therein jointly and severally. 2. The brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 30.12.2014, at about 11:30 p.m., on National Highway No. 53 near village Baihar, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), non-applicant No. 1, while driving his vehicle, a Hyva dumper bearing registration No.CG-06/M/0805 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), in a rash and negligent manner, collided with a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No.OD-15/5656 coming from the opposite direction, resulting in a fatal accident. In the said accident, one Premsukh Agarwal, who was travelling in the Maruti car, sustained grievous head and bodily injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. On the basis of the report lodged, Police Station Arang registered an offence against non-applicant No. 1 under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and, 3 after due investigation, submitted a charge-sheet before the competent Court. 3. It is stated that prior to the incident, the deceased, Premsukh Agarwal, aged about 60 years, was a healthy and experienced businessman engaged in the gravel trade, earning Rs.30,000/- per month, which constituted the main source of income for the claimants. Due to his untimely demise, the claimants have suffered irreparable loss, which cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms. However, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.48,80,000/- jointly and severally from the non- applicants, along with interest and litigation expenses. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2, in their written statement, denied the allegations and contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Swift car, and not due to any fault of non-applicant No. 1. It was further stated that the deceased, being 60 years of age and a retired person, was not engaged in any business, and the income claimed by the claimants is false and exaggerated. Non-applicant No. 2, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, submitted that the said vehicle was duly insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited at the time of the accident, and therefore, if any compensation is awarded, the liability lies with the insurer alone. 4 5. The Insurance Company, in its reply, opposed the claim on the grounds that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Swift car, amounting to contributory negligence. It was also contended that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. The insurance company further submitted that the compensation amount claimed by the claimants is highly inflated and untenable. 6. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,17,146/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directing payment of compensation is bad in law, having been passed in disregard of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal has failed to conduct a fair and proper inquiry as mandated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Act. Therefore, the award suffers from legal infirmities and is liable to be quashed against the appellant in the interest of justice. 5 It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a legal error while assessing the dependency of the claimant. It is an admitted fact that the claimant is engaged in his own profession, earning a regular income, and maintaining his family independently. Hence, it can be safely presumed that the claimant was not dependent upon the deceased’s income. The learned Tribunal has overlooked the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643, wherein it was held that in the absence of dependency, no compensation can be awarded under the head of “loss of dependency.” The finding regarding dependency as recorded by the learned Tribunal is thus contrary to the evidence and material on record, and consequently, the amount of compensation awarded is liable to be reduced. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant is earning a regular income from his profession and maintaining his family independently, and therefore, it cannot be said that he was financially dependent upon the deceased’s income. The findings of the learned Tribunal against the appellant are perverse and contrary to the record. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence and ought to have held that the driver, owner, and insurer of both vehicles involved in the accident were necessary parties for proper adjudication of the case. The Tribunal has further erred in fastening the entire liability for payment of compensation upon 6 non-applicant No. 2. The claimant has not produced any cogent evidence to prove dependency upon the deceased’s income. It is also submitted that claimant No. 2, being a major aged about 30 years, cannot be treated as a dependent of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record, the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal is arbitrary, and the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and liable to be reduced appropriately. The insurance company has been duly impleaded in compliance with the provisions of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company confines the present appeal to two principal grounds: firstly, that the accident was a result of contributory negligence; and secondly, that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal, while examining the issue of contributory negligence, observed that the claimant, Shiba Kumar Agarwal (PW-2), deposed that on the night of 30.12.2014, at about 11:30 p.m., his father, Premsukh Agarwal, was travelling from Raipur to Odisha in his Maruti Swift car (No.OD-15/5656), driven by Sunil Kumar (PW-1). Near village Baihar on National Highway No. 53, the offending vehicle coming from the opposite direction in 7 a rash and negligent manner collided head-on with the car, resulting in the death of Premsukh Agarwal on the spot. 11. Sunil Kumar (PW-1) stated that he was driving slowly and on his correct side of the road when the offending vehicle, driven by non- applicant No. 1, came at high speed and caused the collision. On the complaint of the claimant, a criminal case was registered against the driver under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The claimant produced certified copies of the FIR, final report, postmortem report, seizure memos, and vehicle documents to support the case. 12. Relying on the principles laid down in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (AIR 2011 SC 1504) and Vimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1725), the Tribunal held that findings in claim cases are based on preponderance of probabilities rather than strict proof as in criminal trials. The record clearly established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No. 1. Though the claimant admitted he was not an eyewitness as well as Sunil Kumar (PW-1) admitted it was a head-on collision, the Tribunal found no evidence of negligence on the part of the car driver. The driver of the offending did not appear to rebut the allegations. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the insurance company’s plea of contributory negligence and held that the 8 accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 13. Secondly, the learned Claims Tribunal, while dealing with the issue of whether the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence, has held in paragraphs 17 to 21 that the burden of proof rested upon the insurance company, which contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving without a valid licence and, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. To support its contention, the insurance company examined RTO employee R.K. Khalkho (NAW-1), Assistant Grade-II, who produced the original licence register and relevant records. 14. NAW-1 R.K. Khalkho deposed that licence No. S/11575/8 was issued on 30.01.2001 to Samaylal Satnami for driving a motorcycle and light motor vehicle, valid until 29.01.2021, and that an endorsement authorizing him to drive heavy goods vehicles was granted on 16.12.2002, valid until 15.12.2005. He further stated that the licence was later renewed for non-transport vehicles up to 14.06.2025, and that the documents marked Exhibits D-1 and D-2 pertain to the same licence number. 15. During cross-examination, NAW-1 admitted that, as per the records, the driver was authorized to drive heavy and commercial vehicles and that the documents produced by the Insurance Company were issued from his office. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the driver, non-applicant No. 1, possessed 9 a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the Insurance Company’s defence, holding that there was no violation of the terms of the insurance policy, and that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of the incident. 16. The issue with respect to persons having a licence authorizing to drive Light Motor Vehicle, but on the date of accident found driving the commercial vehicle, but of the same category, has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (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 kinds 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 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 10 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)(e) 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 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 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 (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” 11 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 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.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent Constitution Bench decision in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Others, 2024 INSC 840, has reaffirmed the legal position laid down in Mukund Dewangan (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court held that a person holding a valid and effective driving licence for a “Light Motor Vehicle” (LMV) under Section 10(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is competent to drive a transport vehicle, the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg, without requiring any separate endorsement or additional authorisation. The Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that the subsequent amendments to the Act or the rules have not 12 altered this legal position, and that the additional conditions relating to age, training, or special endorsement apply only to medium or heavy goods/passenger vehicles exceeding the prescribed weight limit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the correctness of the view taken in Mukund Dewangan (supra) and reiterated that the licence to drive a light motor vehicle continues to be valid for driving a transport vehicle of the same class and weight category. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the appellant/insurance company has failed to substantiate either of the two grounds urged in the present appeal. The plea of contributory negligence has been rightly rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of cogent oral and documentary evidence, which clearly establish that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non-applicant No. 1. The Tribunal’s finding in this regard is well- reasoned and supported by the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parmeshwari (supra) and Vimla Devi (supra). 19. Likewise, the second ground raised by the appellant concerning the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is also devoid of merit. The evidence on record, as discussed by the Tribunal, clearly establishes that the driver possessed a valid and effective licence to drive light motor 13 vehicles, which includes transport vehicles of the same category as per the law laid down in Mukund Dewangan (supra). The said position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent Constitution Bench decision of Rambha Devi (supra), holding that no separate endorsement is required for driving a transport vehicle with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kgs. 20. Accordingly, both the grounds raised by the appellant fail to sustain. There is no illegality, perversity, or error apparent in the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed. No order as to costs. 21. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh