1 2026:CGHC:18068 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 673 of 2020 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager, Rahul Complex, Axis Bank, Above Dhimrapur Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh., District : Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Shweta Mishra D/o Sanjay Kumar Mishra Aged About 20 Years R/o Aashish Auto Gali Baikunthpur, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh. (Claimant), District : Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh 2 - Shankar @ Manku Nagvanshi S/o Dharam Nagvanshi Aged About 21 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Ward No.9, Riya Para, Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh. (Driver), District : Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh 3 - Principal D.P.S. Gyandhara Education Pvt. Ltd., OfÏce- Opposite Town Hall, Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh. (Regd. Owner), District : Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.22 11:40:01 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 21.04.2026 1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 10/01/2020 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned VIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No. 30/2019 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,65,884/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1/claimant and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would make a two-fold submission. Firstly, that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license and secondly, that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle as required under Section 66(1) of the Act of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award and submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. So far as the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, qua the driver of the offending vehicle not having valid license, is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has relied upon the statement of Shivat Kumar Yadav (NA.W.-1), who is a witness of the Insurance Company and works at RTO OfÏce, Raigarh. He has clearly admitted in his cross- examination that the offending vehicle comes under the category of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and as per the driving license issued to the driver (Ex. D/1), he was fully empowered to drive the offending vehicle. 6. Even otherwise, in the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi and others1, it has clearly been held by the Supreme Court that a driver holding a 1 (2025) 3 SCC 95 4 license for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2) (d) of the Act of 1988 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 Act specifically for the “transport vehicle” class. 7. 7. Thus, in view of the statement of Shivat Kumar Yadav (NA.W.-1) as well as the decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambha Devi (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the first contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company does not hold any weight and is hereby rejected. 8. Now, the second contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle, therefore, Insurance Company would not be liable for payment of compensation. A careful perusal of the record would show that though the Insurance Company has made a vague pleading in paragraph 11 of their written statement that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle and led evidence of Shivat Kumar Yadav (NA.W.-1) though he has produced the documents relating to vehicle No. CG 13/AE 4920 whereas the offending vehicle is bearing Registration No. 5 CG 13/Q 0697, as such, the evidence led by the Insurance Company with regard to permit is not related to the offending vehicle. Apart from this, no additional evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to demonstrate that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet