United India Insurance Company Limited vs Sujata Rani And Others

FAO-6939-2018 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

FAO-6939-2018 (O&M)

Reserved on : 04.11.2026

Pronounced on: 13.11.2026

Uploaded on: 13.11.2026

United India Insurance Company Limited ..... Appellant


VERSUS

Smt. Sujata Rani and others ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA

Present: Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate
for the appellant-insurance company.

Service upon respondents No.1 to 3 already dispensed with
vide order dated 07.04.2022.

*
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance
company for setting aside the award dated 31.07.2018 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Tribunal’), whereby, the appellant-insurance company has been held
liable to pay compensation to the respondents No.1 to 4-claimants.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed
by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for
grant of compensation on account of death of Kasturi Lal. The claimants
vide award dated 20.04.2011 passed by the Tribunal, were held entitled
for grant of compensation of an amount of Rs.6,10,400/- along with
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.13 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-6939-2018 (O&M) 2
interest @ 9% per annum. As per the award dated 20.04.2011 passed by
the Tribunal, the claim petition was accepted qua the driver and owner of
the offending vehicle and was rejected qua the insurance company.
Aggrieved against the abovesaid award dated 20.04.2011, the driver and
owner of the offending vehicle filed an appeal bearing number
FAO-5977-2011 before this Court. The abovesaid appeal was disposed of
vide order dated 13.10.2017 passed by this Court and the matter was
remanded back to the Tribunal only for determination of the liability to
pay the compensation. The Tribunal vide award dated 31.07.2018 held
that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation awarded
to the claimants. A perusal of the award dated 31.07.2018 passed by the
Tribunal would show that reliance has been placed on judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Mukund Dewangan Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011
decided on 03.07.2017, wherein it has been held that in a case of transport
vehicle, if the gross vehicle weight does not exceeds 7500 kgs., the holder
of the license to drive the class of light motor vehicle would be competent
to drive the transport vehicle.
3. Aggrieved against the award dated 31.07.2018 passed by the
Tribunal, the appellant-insurance company has filed the present appeal.
4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant-insurance company is that as the license of
respondent No.5-driver only mentioned that the same was valid for
driving motorcycle, scooter, car and jeep, as such, respondent No.5-driver
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.13 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-6939-2018 (O&M) 3
was not competent to drive a three-wheeler for carrying goods, as such,
insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. Reliance is
placed on the judgment dated 25.11.1997 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in FAO-2331-1996 titled as National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Shinder Kaur and others, wherein, it was held that merely
one has a driving licence, he cannot drive any class of description of
vehicle.
5. A perusal of the case file would show that service upon
respondents No.1 to 3 was already dispensed with vide order dated
07.04.2022 passed by this Court and respondent No.5 and 6 were
proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 11.11.2022 passed by this
Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-insurance company and have perused the paper-book with his
able assistance.
7. In regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company that respondent
No.5-driver was not competent to drive a three-wheeler for carrying
goods as he was holding a license for “light motor vehicle” class and it
was specifically mentioned in the abovesaid license that respondent
No.5-driver was only competent to drive motorcycle, scooter, car and jeep
is concerned, it is not in dispute that respondent No.5-driver was a holder
of “light motor vehicle” license and three-wheeler driven by him was
having a gross weight under 7500 kgs. It is settled that in a case, where
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.13 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-6939-2018 (O&M) 4
the gross vehicle weight does not exceeds 7500 kgs., the holder of driving
license to drive class of light motor vehicle, as provided in Section
10(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is competent to drive a
transport vehicle. Reliance is made to the judgment dated 03.07.2017
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5826
of 2011 titled as Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:-

“46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a
licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to
the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be
different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles,
no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As
light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of
light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class
including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well
the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001.
Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the dentition of
“light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of
section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and
also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even
otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles
from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor
vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply
for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in
Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include
medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy
goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found
place in section I0(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by
the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer
the questions which are referred to us thus:
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.13 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-6939-2018 (O&M) 5
(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the
Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed
in section 2(21) read with section2(15) and 2(48). Such transport
vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor
vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle
weight of either of which does not exceed 7500kg. would be a
light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller,
‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500kg. and holder of
a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as
provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport
vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not
exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the
“unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to
say no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a
transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated
above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be
valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act
No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h)
of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in
section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section
10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy
passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression
‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only
to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude
transport vehicle from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section
2(41)of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of
“transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were
substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving
licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle”
continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and
there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.13 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-6939-2018 (O&M) 6
transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light
motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without
any endorsement to that effect.”

8. Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) again came up for
consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case titled as M/s Bajaj Alliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and others, 2025(1) RCR
(Civil) 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision in Mukund
Dewangan’s case (supra). Relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced below for reference:-
“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 7,500 kg, 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, erickshaws, and
vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes 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 MV Rules generally for driving `transport vehicles' would
apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross
vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. `medium goods vehicle',
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.13 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-6939-2018 (O&M) 7
`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 MV Rules were not
considered in the said judgment.

9. A perusal of the facts of the case would clearly show that
respondent No.5-driver was driving a three-wheeler for carrying goods
whose gross vehicle weight was under 7500 kgs and respondent
No.5-driver was holder of a license for “light motor vehicle.” Taking into
consideration the facts of the case and judgments referred above,
respondent No.5-driver was competent to drive a three-wheeler for
carrying goods. Accordingly, the appellant-insurance company cannot
escape from its liability to pay compensation.
10. In regard to reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant-insurance company on Shinder Kaur’s case
(supra) is concerned, in light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court referred above, Shinder Kaur’s case (supra) does not
help the case of the appellant-insurance company.
11. In view of above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in
the award dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the
present appeal is dismissed.



RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.13 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-6939-2018 (O&M) 8

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of
accordingly.

(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
JUDGE
13.11.2026
Ramandeep Singh



Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable Yes/ No

RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.13 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document