ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs JITENDRAJI MANUJI CHAVDA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1696 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT)
NO. 1 of 2023
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1696 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
JITENDRAJI MANUJI CHAVDA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY with MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS SPRUHA JOSHI for MR TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Defendant(s) No.
3,4,5,6
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 29/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant–insurance company under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Judgment and
Award dated 28.12.2018 passed by the learned Judge,
CBI Court No. 5, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, in MACP No. 449
of 2012, whereby the Claim Petition of the original
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
claimants was partly allowed and an amount of
Rs.9,48,000/- was awarded, with a direction to recover
the said amount from original opponent Nos.1 to 3 jointly
and severally, along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment
of realization.
2. The factual matrix leading to the present appeal is
that MACP No. 449 of 2012 was preferred by the parents
of the deceased, Shekhar Harishkumar Anand. As per the
case of the claimants, on 29.05.2012, at about 02:30 p.m.,
one Mr. Roshankumar Dilipsinh was riding a motorcycle
bearing registration No. GJ-1-D-4723, along with the
deceased, Shekhar Harishkumar Anand, as a pillion rider,
from Sardarnagar towards Subhashbridge. At that time,
the driver of the motorcycle, Mr.Roshankumar Dilipsinh,
which was owned by opponent No. 5, was driving on the
correct side of the road. When they were passing by the
Hero Honda workshop on Sardarnagar Road, a milk van
(truck) bearing registration No. GJ-2V-4202 came from
the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
collided with the motorcycle with full speed, in a rash and
negligent manner. Due to the said accident, the pillion
rider, who was sitting behind Mr.Roshankumar Dilipsinh
i.e. deceased-Shekhar Harishkumar Anand, fell down and
sustained grievous injuries on their heads and various
parts of their bodies. Shekhar Harishkumar Anand died
on the way while being taken to the Civil Hospital,
whereas Mr.Roshankumar Dilipsinh sustained injuries
and was admitted as an indoor patient at the Civil
Hospital on 29.05.2012 to 02.06.2012. The said
Mr.Roshankumar Dilipsinh also preferred a Claim Petition
being MACP No. 394 of 2012. In connection with the
accident, an FIR was registered at Sardarnagar Police
Station vide I-C.R. No. 163 of 2012 against the truck
driver. The parents of the deceased preferred the
aforesaid Claim Petition before the Tribunal, claiming
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. After considering the
oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition with costs and
interest and directed the opponents to pay a sum of
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
Rs.9,48,000/- to the orignal opponent Nos.1 to 3, jointly
and severally, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and
Award, the insurance company has preferred the present
appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Masumi V. Nanavaty for
the appellant–insurance company. She submitted that the
award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the
facts on record and that the findings and conclusions
arrived at by the learned Tribunal are erroneous. She
further submitted that the main ground on which the
present appeal has been preferred is pertain to the
original opponent No. 1, the driver of the truck, was not
holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
She further submitted that the findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal with respect to the legal liability of the
insurance company of the offending vehicle are
misconceived. Further submitted that the driver of the
offending truck was not holding a valid and effective
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
driving licence on the date of the accident, i.e.,
29.05.2012. Further, it is submitted that the R.T.O. officer,
who was examined vide Exh. 41, wherein he specifically
stated that the driver of the offending tanker was not
holding any kind of driving licence on the date of the
accident, i.e., 29.05.2012. She further submitted that, as
the driver was not holding a valid driving licence on the
date of the accident, he had committed a breach of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further, it is
submitted that Mr.Pradeepkumar Bulakiram Pawar, the
Area Manager of the insurance company, has been
examined as a witness vide Exh.61 and in his deposition
he has admitted that the insurance policy which has been
produced at Exh.62 is concerned it was valid from
11.09.2001 to 10.09.2012 which is said policy was in
existence and in this policy it is been clearly stated that at
the time of accident the driver of the vehicle is not
holding effective and valid driving license and hence, the
insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
She further submitted that the document produced at
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
Exh. 43 clearly establishes that the transport driving
licence was not valid on the date of the accident, i.e.,
29.05.2012. The licence to drive a transport vehicle was
valid from 08.04.2009 to 07.04.2012 and was
subsequently renewed for the period from 31.05.2015 to
30.05.2018. Thus, on 29.05.2012, the licence holder was
not holding a valid licence to drive the truck. In view of
the above, she submitted that the impugned Judgment
and Award passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous
and that the present appeal deserves to be allowed by
exonerating the insurance company from its liability.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Tirth Nayak for the
respondent vehemently opposed the appeal. He submitted
that the learned Tribunal had considered every aspect of
the matter and had recorded clear findings after
appreciating the evidence on record. He pointed out that
Mr. Bhaghirathsinh D. Chauhan, an employee of the
R.T.O., Ahmedabad, was examined vide Exh. 41 and,
during his cross-examination, specifically admitted that a
licence could be renewed even after the expiry of its
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
validity upon payment of late fees. He also admitted that,
on 29.05.2012, the driver had a licence, though it had not
been renewed. He further submitted that the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding a driving licence for a non-
transport vehicle for the period from 10.02.2005 to
07.04.2029. The learned Tribunal had rightly considered
that the driver could not be said to have been disqualified
from driving the light motor vehicle merely because the
transport endorsement was not valid on the date of the
accident. He further submitted that it had not been
established on record that the owner of the offending
vehicle was aware that the driver had not renewed the
licence for driving a transport vehicle.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for both parties.
6. Considering the rival submissions advanced by
learned advocates appearing for both parties and upon
perusal of the impugned judgment, the only question that
arises for consideration is whether, on the date of the
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
accident, i.e., 29.05.2012, the driver of the offending
truck was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the
transport vehicle, which is the sole ground on which the
appellant–insurance company has preferred the present
appeal. From the impugned judgment, it is amply clear
that the driver of the offending truck bearing registration
No. GJ-2V-4202 was holding a licence to drive a light
motor vehicle in the non-transport category for the period
from 10.02.2005 to 07.04.2029. The licence to drive a
transport vehicle was valid for the period from
08.04.2009 to 07.04.2012 and was subsequently renewed
for the period from 31.05.2015 to 30.05.2018. Thus, the
admitted position is that, on 29.05.2012, the driver was
not holding a licence for a transport vehicle, though he
was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. The
Registration Certificate book of the offending truck
bearing registration No. GJ-2V-4202 has been produced
on record, and, as per the said R.C. book, the vehicle falls
under the category of Light Goods Vehicle (LGV).
7. Considering the fact that the offending truck was of
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
class of Light Goods Vehicles (LGV), and in view of the
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298 , it was held that
a transport vehicle having a gross vehicle weight not
exceeding 7,500 kg falls within the definition of a light
motor vehicle. A holder of a driving licence to drive a
light motor vehicle, as provided under Section 10(2)(d) of
the Act, is competent to drive a transport vehicle or
omnibus having a “gross vehicle weight” not exceeding
7,500 kg, as well as a motor car, tractor or road roller, the
unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.
8. The said judgment was subsequently considered by
the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v.
Rambha Devi and Others , reported in 2024 LawSuit
(SC) 961 , wherein it was held as under:
“[131] Our conclusions following the above
discussion are as under:-
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
(1) 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, e-rickshaws, and
vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(11) 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', '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
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
Rules were not considered in the said
judgment.”
9. Considering the above dictum of the Hon’ble Apex
Court, it is not in dispute that, on the date of the accident,
i.e., 29.05.2012, the driver of the offending vehicle,
original opponent No. 1, was holding a driving licence for
a non-transport vehicle, valid for the period from
10.02.2005 to 07.04.2029. Considering the class of the
offending vehicle, namely, Light Goods Vehicle (LGV), it
can be said that the driver of the offending vehicle,
original opponent No. 1, was holding a licence for a non-
transport vehicle from 10.02.2005 to 07.04.2029 and, so,
he had a valid and effective licence to drive the Light
Goods Vehicle (LGV), which is the offending vehicle, on
the date of the accident, i.e., 29.05.2012. Further, from
the Registration Certificate (RC) Book, it is also clear that
the offending vehicle had a gross vehicle weight not
exceeding 7,500 kg. Therefore, even a person holding a
licence to drive a light motor vehicle can drive a Light
Goods Vehicle that does not exceed 7,500 kg.
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
10. Considering the above, the argument advanced by
the learned advocate for the appellant that, on the date of
the accident, the driver of the offending truck was not
holding a valid and effective licence to drive the offending
truck has no force. On the contrary, in view of the above
discussion, it is found that the driver of the offending
truck, i.e., original opponent No. 1, was holding a valid
and effective licence to drive the truck on the date of the
accident.
11. In view of the above, the impugned Judgment and
Award passed by the learned Tribunal does not require
any interference. The present appeal is, therefore, devoid
of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
12. The following order is passed:
a. The present First Appeal No. 1696 of 2019 is hereby
dismissed.
b. The judgment and award dated 28.12.2018 passed
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026
C/FA/1696/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240247822019)
by the learned Judge, CBI Court No. 5, Mirzapur,
Ahmedabad, in MACP No. 449 of 2012 is hereby
confirmed.
c. In view of the dismissal of the First Appeal, Civil
Application No. 1 of 2023 also stands disposed of
accordingly.
d. Record and Proceedings (R & P), if any, be sent back
to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
STANCY GOMES
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:01:36 IST 2026