IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 107 I. XOBJC-273-CII-2016 in FAO-5268-2012 Charan Kaur @ Channo Devi and others …..Non-applicants/Appellants Vs. Prabhu and Others .….Applicants/Respondents II. XOBJC-272-CII-2016 in FAO-5269-2012 Raj Kumar …..Non-applicant/Appellant Vs. Prabhu and Others .….Applicants/Respondents Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for applicant/respondent No.2. Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) A motor vehicular accident was caused on 25.05.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of Auto Rickshaw No. HR-69-8903 within the area of Sonipat, resul.ng in death of Resham Singh and injuries to Raj Kumar. Widow, minor son and mother of deceased Resham Singh filed claim pe..on bearing No. MVA Pe..on (RBT) No.34 of 2011 seeking compensa.on on account of death of Resham Singh; whereas injured Raj Kumar filed separate pe..on bearing No. MVA Pe..on (RBT) No.35 of 2011 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.08.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document XOBJC-273-CII-2016 in FAO-5268-2012 XOBJC-272-CII-2016 in FAO-5269-2012 -2- seeking compensa.on on account of injuries sustained by him. These pe..ons were filed against driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle by impleading them as respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 respec.vely. The driver and owner did not contest the pe..ons before the Tribunal and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.08.2010. Respondent No.3- insurance company resisted the claim on the ground that respondent No.1- driver was not holding a valid and effec.ve driving license at the .me of accident and so, insurance company was liable to be exonerated. 2. Learned MACT, Sonipat vide a common award dated 13.09.2011 awarded compensa.on of ₹4,30,200/- along with interest, in favour of Smt. Charan Kaur etc. i.e. legal representa.ves of Resham Singh on account of death of said Resham Singh; whereas compensa.on of ₹63,900/- along with interest was allowed to injured Raj Kumar. The Tribunal held that the driver was holding driving license to drive motorcycle, car and jeep only, whereas the offending vehicle was an auto rickshaw and registered as Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), which he was not en.tled to drive. As such, the insurance company was directed to make payment of compensa.on to the claimants but with the right of recovery against the driver and owner. 3. FAO No.5268 of 2012 was filed by Charan Kaur etc. seeking enhancement in compensa.on, whereas FAO No.5269 of 2012 was filed by injured Raj Kumar for the same purpose. In both these FAOs, separate cross-objec.ons were filed by the owner of the offending vehicle- respondent No.2 so as to exempt his liability by contending that the driver had a valid and effec.ve license at the .me of accident. 4. The two FAOs were disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide a common order dated 03.12.2018, by allowing enhancement in compensa.on. However the cross-objec.ons were adjourned sine die so as NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.08.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document XOBJC-273-CII-2016 in FAO-5268-2012 XOBJC-272-CII-2016 in FAO-5269-2012 -3- to await the decision of the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.27787 of 2017 .tled “M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi and Others”. 5. Today, learned counsel for the cross-objector has cited before this Court a Cons.tu.onal Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in “M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi and Others” reported as 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 5, wherein the issue rela.ng to the liability of the insurance company, when driver is not holding license for transport vehicle, was considered at length. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, aCer ci.ng numerous precedents concluded as under: “131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Sec.on 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permiEed to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing addi.onal authoriza.on under Sec.on 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not en.rely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however con.nue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Sec.on 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the defini.on of LMV provided in Sec.on 2(21) of the MV Act. (III) The addi.onal eligibility criteria specified in the MV 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’. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.08.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document XOBJC-273-CII-2016 in FAO-5268-2012 XOBJC-272-CII-2016 in FAO-5269-2012 -4- 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.” 6. It is clear from the abovesaid conclusions elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that a driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle class, for vehicles with gross vehicle weight under 7500 Kg is permiEed to drive transport vehicle without any addi.onal authoriza.on for transport vehicle class. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effec.ve driving license so as to drive a motorcycle, car, jeep or even the offending vehicle, the gross weight of which was within the limit of 7500 Kg. Car and jeep fall in the category of Light Motor Vehicle and as such, there was no necessity for the driver to get addi.onal authoriza.on for transport vehicle class. 8. In view of the aforesaid authorita.ve pronouncement of Cons.tu.onal Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that insurance company shall be liable to make payment of the compensa.on as awarded to the claimants in both the claim pe..ons as awarded by the Tribunal in both the cases and as enhanced by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2018 as per its statutory liability. Cross-objec.ons are allowed accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE August 27, 2025 Nee.ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.08.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document