THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY vs POOJA

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No. 25 of 2025


The New India Assurance Company ….....Appellant

Versus

Pooja and others .….Respondents


Present:-

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Abhishek Rawat, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.C.
Upadhayay, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Pramod Bailwal, Advocate for the respondent no.6.
Mr. Anil Kumar, respondent no.3 present in person
through video conferencing.
Mr. Kuldeep Kohli, respondent no.4 present in person
through video conferencing.


Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated
12.12.2024, passed in MACP No. 07 of 2023, Smt. Pooja and
another Vs. Sri Anil Kumar and others (“the claim petition”) by the
MACT/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal. By it, the claim petition
seeking compensation filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, the
claimants has been allowed and they have been awarded
Rs.18,47,860/- compensation alongwith interest.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. The claimants filed the claim petition on the ground
that on 21.10.2022 at 12:00 in the noon, the respondent
no.1/claimant Smt. Pooja with her husband deceased Ravindra
was riding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. UK-07 BY 2944
(“the motorcycle”), when they reached Chamba-Mussorrie motor
road at Dhangdhar, the driver of the truck bearing Registration No.

2
UK-07 CB-2424 (“the truck”), was rash and negligent and hit them,
due to which the respondent no.1/claimant Smt. Pooja sustained
certain injuries and the deceased succumbed to injuries. According
to the claimant, the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of
incident. He was working as a Cook in a hotel and was getting Rs.
31,000/- per month salary. The respondent no.2/claimant Km.
Priyanshi is daughter of the deceased. A claim of Rs.73,50,000/-
was made.
4. The respondent no.3, the driver of the Truck did file his
objections. According to him, he was not rash and negligent in
driving the truck. The motorcycle, in fact, hit the parapet, which is
the cause of accident.
5. The respondent no.4/the owner of the truck also filed
his objections. According to him, the driver was experienced and he
was careful in driving the vehicle. The accident took place due to
rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle. It has also
been the claim of the respondent no.4/the owner of the truck that
the vehicle has all the valid documents. The claim of the
respondent no.4/the owner of the truck was that neither injury
report nor post mortem report has been filed so as to reveal that the
cause of the death was accident; no documents with regard to the
age and occupation of the deceased was filed. It has also been the
case of the respondent no.4/the owner of the truck that if there was
any accident it was due to the fault of the deceased. The truck
driver has no role in it. The validity of documents has also been
questioned.

3
6. On behalf of the respondent no.4 through video
conferencing, a person introduced himself as Kuldeep Kohli and
argued that the truck has all the valid documents.
7. The respondent no.5/the owner of the motorcycle did
not choose to file any objections.
8. There were some formal parties also. They were
respondent nos. 7 and 8 in the claim petition. They have supported
the claim of the claimants.
9. Based on the pleadings of the parties, on 24.07.2023,
the following questions of law were framed:-
(i) Whether on 21.10.2022 at about 12:00 noon at
Dhangdhar of Chamba-Mussoorie motor road,
under Police Station Chamba, District Tehri
Garhwal, the driver of Vehicle No. UK-07 CB -
2424 by driving the vehicle rashly and
negligently hit the motorcycle No. UK-07 BY-
2944 of the deceased Ravindra, due to which the
deceased sustained injuries and consequently he
died? If yes, then its effect?
(ii) Whether at the time of accident the registered
owner of Vehicle No. UK-07 CB -2424 was having
valid registration certificate, fitness certificate,
permit and insurance documents? If not, then its
effect?
(iii) Whether at the time of accident, the driver of
Vehicle No. UK-07 CB -2424 was not having valid

4
driving license for driving the vehicle? If not, then
its effect?
(iv) Compensation, if any, which the claimants are
entitled to? If yes, then to what extent and from
which party?
10. Parties filed documents and let evidence in the claim
petition. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal on issue no.1
opined that the accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of the truck. On issue nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal held that
the vehicles have all the valid documents. Accordingly, the
compensation was awarded.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
driver of the truck did not have any valid driving license. It was a
transport vehicle, but the driving license of the driver did not have
that endorsement. He would submit that, initially, this ground was
taken by the appellant, but according to him, this ground is no
more available to the appellant now, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi and others, (2025) 3
SCC 95.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
submits that it was a transport vehicle of which the un-laden
weight was less than 7,500 kilograms, in view of the law as laid
down in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company
Limited (supra). Even if, such endorsement is not made in the
driving license, it does not invalidate the license.

5
13. Light Motor Vehicle is defined under Section 2 (21) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It reads as follows:-
“ 2. Definitions.— In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,—
(1).......................................................................
(2).......................................................................
...........................................................................
...........................................................................
(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or
omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a
motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of
any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms;”
14. In the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Company Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
“a driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle with a gross
vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a
“transport vehicle” without needing additional authorisation”.
In para 181.1 the Court held as follows:-
“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.”
15. The only ground taken by the appellant/Insurance
Company was that the driver of the truck did not have additional
authorisation of driving the transport vehicle, but in view of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj

6
Alliance General Insurance Company Limited (supra) such
additional authorisation is not required.
16. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there
is no reason to make any interference with the impugned judgment
and order. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
17. The appeal is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.05.2026

Jitendra