1 2026:CGHC:4887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1529 of 2024 1 - Shri Ram General Insurance Com Ltd Address 4th Flour, Maruti High Gates, Near R. K. Mall, Great Eastern Marg Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) (Insured Of Offending Vehicle Tata Magic C.G.-18-C-1183) ... Appellant versus 1 - Rohini Kumari D/o Shri Uttam Kumar Aged 49 Father Shri Punitram Sonkar Aged About 16 Years R/o Gram Barpara, Ratesara, Thana Charama District- Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) Hall Mukam- Through- Near Shop Krishan Kumar Sonkar Ramkund, Thana Azad Chouk Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) Through Natural Guardian Father Uttam Kumar (Claimant) 2 - Manish Dayal @ Montu S/o Shri Mahesh Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Telka Road, Barpara, Thana Kanker District Uttar Baster, Kanker (C.G.) (Driver Of Tata Magic Offending Vehicle C.G.-18-C-1183) 3 - Kamlesh Yadav S/o Shri Salik Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Bhandaripara, Thana Kanker District Uttar Baster Kankar (C.G.) (Owner Of Tata Magic Offending Vehicle C.G.-18-C-1183) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For respondent No.1 : None though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.01 .2026 1. Heard. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur 2 (C.G.) in Claim Case No.559/2020 dated 08.05.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,76,550/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on account of injuries sustained by Rohini Kumari, aged about 16 years. 3. Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that on 30.07.2019 while the mother of the claimant was going school to drop her younger daughter namely Rohini Kumari, his scooty was dashed by Magic Vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.18/C/1183. He would contend that in said accident, Rohini Kumari sustained injuries including fracture of right leg. Mr. Verma would submit that the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.1,76,550/- ignoring the fact : (i) there was delay of 176 days in registration of FIR; (ii) the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license and (iii) the vehicle was being plied in absence of fitness and valid permit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would contend that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving license and this issue has been discussed by learned Tribunal at length. It is also argued that with regard to fitness and valid permit, the Insurance Company failed to lead evidence before the learned Tribunal. They would further contend that an FIR was lodged on 19.01.2020 vide Ex.P/1. They would submit that as the claimant was under treatment, therefore, prompt FIR was not lodged at the concerned Police Station. They would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. A perusal of the documents would show that the claimant Rohini Kumari, 3 aged about 16 years sustained various injuries including fracture. She was admitted in the Medishine Health Care and Research Pvt.Ltd., Raipur for treatment, where she remained hospitalized for a considerable period and after discharge, FIR was lodged on 19.01.2020. The reasons assigned for delay appears to be just and proper. 7. With regard to driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, there is categorical finding that the driver had a license to drive Light Motor Vehicle but there was no endorsement. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rambha Devi & Ors reported in MANU/SC/1178/2024 in para 131 (I), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, Under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization Under Section 10 (2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class, para 131 (I) is reproduced herein-below :- 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under: (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, Under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization 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. 4 Thus, the contention made by Mr. Verma with regard to driving license cannot be accepted. 9. With regard to fitness and permit, the Insurance Company failed to lead oral or documentary evidence. Mere assertion in the reply is not sufficient to establish the fact. 10. Taking into the consideration the facts discussed-above and the amount of compensation, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge rekha