1 2026:HHC:6173 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. : 4084 of 2013 Date of Decision : 28.02.2026 Oriental Insurance Company …...Appellant Versus Gorkhu Ram & Others …...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Prittam Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Name of respondent No.1 deleted from the array of parties, vide order dated 21.12.2023. Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. None for respondent No.4. Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate for respondent No.5. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Appellant–Oriental Insurance Company, has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended upto date, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), against the award dated 31.12.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in MACP No.25- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6173 G/2007/2011, titled as Gorkhu Ram & Others Versus M/s Hari Travels Private Ltd. 2. Parties to the present appeal, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to by the learned Tribunal. 3. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:- 3.1. The legal representatives of the deceased had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of Bus No.DL-IPB- 7964 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’), seeking compensation on account of death of Smt. Nirmala Devi, in an accident having taken place on 11.06.2007, involving the offending vehicle. 3.2. The learned Tribunal has decided the said claim petition, by awarding compensation of Rs.4,05,000/-, in favour of the claimants and against respondent No.3-Insurance Company. However, the right to recover the amount has been given to the Insurance Company, by holding that the said amount can be realized from respondent No.1, by filing the execution. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the present appeal has been filed mainly, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the driver of the 3 2026:HHC:6173 offending vehicle could not prove the driving licence Ex.RW-1/B (sic.), as valid and effective, as, the driving licence was issued for LMV-NT and HTV only and there was no endorsement for driving the Passenger’s Service Vehicle (PSV). 5. Another ground, upon which, the award has been assailed, before this Court, is that the offending vehicle was under the lease agreement with the HRTC, as such, HRTC is necessary party and the HRTC has not been impleaded, as party, before the learned Tribunal. 6. As such, Mr. Prittam Singh Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed by setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. The prayer, so made, by learned counsel for the appellant, has been opposed, by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the ground that learned Tribunal has already granted the right of recovery to the Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover the amount of compensation from respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle. 8. Heard. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunita & others versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, 2025 ACJ 1841, the arguments of the learned 4 2026:HHC:6173 counsel appearing for the appellant are devoid of merit, as, the driver could not prove that he was having a valid and effective driving licence. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed this point and held that a person holding a driving licence to drive LMV is authorized to drive the commercial vehicle. Relevant paragraph 10 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “10. The findings of the Courts below reveal that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was holding a valid license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). However, in fact, the vehicle in question is a commercial one. We agree with the view taken by the High Court, holding that no endorsement was required to drive a commercial vehicle of the type in question, by the driver who possesses a license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). In the present case, the offending vehicle was TATA 407 Truck, having a gross total weight of around 4995 Kg., which does not exceed 7500 Kg. We must advert to the recent finding of this Court laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2024 ACJ 2623 (SC), wherein view taken by the three-Judge Bench in Mukund Dewangan (Supra), was affirmed while observing that: “131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under: (I) 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 5 2026:HHC:6173 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. (II)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. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving “transport vehicles” 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”. (IV) 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.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, in our considered view, in the present case, although the offending vehicle is a commercial one and the driver of the said vehicle at the time of accident possessed a license to only drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and, considering the gross weight of the vehicle in question is not in excess of 7500 Kg., the driver can be said to be holding a valid license to drive the same.” 11. If the facts and circumstances of the present case, are seen in the light of the above decision, it can be said that respondent No.2-driver of the offending vehicle, was having the valid and effective driving licence as perusal of the copy of Ex.RW-1/A, reveals that he was authorized to drive LMV w.e.f. 6 2026:HHC:6173 12.05.1999 and PSV BUS w.e.f.13.11.2000 and the accident had taken place on 11.06.2007. 12. As per the endorsement, made on the licence (Ex.RW- 1/A), the holder was authorized to drive the transport vehicle upto 24.08.2015. As such, it can not be said that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) February 28, 2026 (ps) Judge