1 ( 2026:HHC:19518 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (MV) No.423 of 2014 Reserved on: 14.05.2026 Decided on: 25.05.2026 Date of uploading on Website : 25.05.2026 ________________________________________________________ Savitri Devi and another …..Appellants Versus Shriram General Insurance Company and others ……Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________________ For the appellants: Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Advocate (through VC), for respondents No.2 & 3. ________________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja , Judge The instant appeal is maintained by the appellants, i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’), with the prayer that the impugned award dated 14.08.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, HP in MAC No.26/2 of 2011, may be quashed and set and aside and respondent No.1-Insurance Company be ordered to pay the amount of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:19518 ) compensation without fastening any liabilitgy on them. 2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the appeal, are that the petitioners, i.e. respondents No.2 & 3 in the instant appeal, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of their son Shri Sanjay Kumar. It was averred by the petitioners that on 08.04.2011, their son Sanjay Kumar, who was a student of 10th class, was going on foot from village Nog towards the school and when he reached near the school, then at about 4:30 p.m., a Tractor, bearing registration No.HP24A-5217, being driven by respondent No.2 (appellant No.2 herein), came in a rash and negligent manner from Mandhyali side and it crushed Sanjay Kumar, as a result of which, he died on the spot. The deceased besides studying, was also helping his father in the fields and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was a brilliant student and had a bright future. Therefore, they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 contested the petition and filed a joint reply, wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties and the petition being bad for not disclosing the true facts of the accident, were taken. On merits, it was averred that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.2 3 ( 2026:HHC:19518 ) as suddenly there developed some mechanical defect in the vehicle, due to which, it was gone out of the control of respondent No.2. It was further averred that the deceased was only a student and not an agriculturist and the income of the deceased, as claimed, was highly excessive and baseless. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company, it took preliminary objections qua maintainability, the driver not holding a valid and effective driving licence, there was no contract of insurance between the owner and the insurance company on the date of alleged accident and the owner of the vehicle was also not possessing valid registration certificate, fitness certificate, route permit, etc. On merits, it was averred that the petitioners were not entitled to any compensation and the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 04.04.2013:- “1. Whether the deceased Sanjay Kumar died on a motor accident which took place on 08.04.2011, at abut 4:30 P.M. near village Nog, District Bilaspur, HP due to the rash and negligent driving of Tractor No. HP-24A-5217 by respondent No.2, as alleged? …..OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents? …..OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, as alleged? ...OPR-3 4 ( 2026:HHC:19518 ) 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? ...OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties? ...OPR 6. Relief.” 6. Parties led the evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioners were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the deposit of the amount. Respondents No.1 & 2 were held liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation, however, since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the said amount in the first instance was payable by respondent No.3, who was held entitled to recover the same from respondents No.1 & 2, in accordance with law. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants, i.e. the owner and the driver of the Tractor in question, preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 14.08.2014, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the same. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the learned Tribunal below has wrongly fastened the liability on the appellants and has wrongly held the insurance company entitled to recover the same 5 ( 2026:HHC:19518 ) from them. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal below has rightly held that the amount of compensation shall be payable by the insurer in the first instance, who shall be entitled to reover the same from the appellants in accordance with law. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 and also carefully examined the entire record. 11. Now the question, which arises for consideration before this Court, is whether the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident, was having a valid and effective driving licence or not. Perusal of the Registration Certificate (RC) of the offending vehicle Ext.RW-1/A, issued by RLA Sadar, District Bilaspur, reveals that the class of the vehicle was Tractor (Commercial), unladen weight of which was 1750 KG and laden weight was 3970 KG, which is less than 7500 KG. Similarly, perusal of driving licence (DL) Ext.RW1/B reveals that the said driving licence was issued by the Registering & Licensing Authority, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, HP and was valid w.e.f. 28.05.2009 to 27.05.2029 for LMV-Tractor-NT, LMV-NT and Motor Cycle. 6 ( 2026:HHC:19518 ) 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company contended that respondent No.2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence as at the relevant point of time he was having a driving licence valid only for driving LMV-Tractor-NT, but not for driving commercial vehicle. However, this contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1/Insurance Company cannot be accepted in view of the recent decision by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi and others, (2025) 3 SCC 95, wherein it has been held that a person holding a licence for light motor vehicle under Section 10(2)(d) of MV Act for vehicles with a gross weight under 7500 KG, he is entitled and permitted to operate a transport vehicle without needing any additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of MV Act, specifically for the transport vehicle having unladen weight of 7500 KG. Relevant portions of the judgment read as under:- “181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class. under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg. is permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without needing additional authorisation 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 emphasises 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 the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving "transport vehicles" 7 ( 2026:HHC:19518 ) would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 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 the MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.” 13. Thus, as per the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, a driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorization to drive transport vehicle. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was registered as Tractor (Commercial) and gross weight of which was 3970 Kgs. At the time of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven by a driver having licence to drive LMV- Tractor-NT, LMV-NT and Motor Cycle. Since driver of the vehicle in question was admittedly having driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, in view of Rambha Devi’s case (supra), no additional authorization was required to drive a light transport vehicle. Hence, it cannot be said that at the time of accident, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, as such, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal below, in this regard, being erroneous are set aside. 14. No other point was urged before this Court. 8 ( 2026:HHC:19518 ) 15. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants, i.e. owner as well as driver of the vehicle, is allowed and the impugned award dated 14.08.2014, passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to the extent that appellants shall be exonerated from paying the amount of compensation to the petitioners and the same shall be paid by the respondent No.1-Insurance Company. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain the same. 16. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge May 25, 2026 (V.Himalvi)