Facts
The appeals challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajpipla’s award of ₹7,73,000 with 9% interest arising from the death of Pratik Chetanbhai Gamit in a collision between a motorcycle and a Mahindra pickup van on 19 December 2010.
Source reference: paras. 1–3The Tribunal found the pickup driver solely negligent and held the opponents jointly and severally liable.
Source reference: paras. 1–3The insurer argued that the driver lacked the required endorsement to drive a transport vehicle and that the deceased was contributorily negligent.
Source reference: para. 4The vehicle owner also appealed.
Source reference: para. 2Issues
Whether a driver holding an LMV licence required an additional transport-vehicle endorsement to drive the Mahindra pickup van.
Source reference: paras. 4, 6–7Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent in causing the accident.
Source reference: paras. 4, 8Law Applied
Under Sections 2(21), 3(1) and 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as interpreted in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors., 2025 (3) SCC 95, an LMV licence covers a transport vehicle with gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kg; a separate transport-vehicle authorisation is not required for such a vehicle, subject to specified statutory exceptions.
Source reference: pp. 3–5The Court also relied on Sadnaben wd/o Damabhai Rajubhai Kanskivala v. Vishnubhai Chhaganbhai Prajapati, First Appeal No. 776 of 2016, which applied that rule.
Source reference: p. 3On negligence, the Tribunal may assess the evidence on record and draw an adverse inference where the driver—whose testimony could address the accident—does not testify.
Source reference: para. 8Reasoning
The RC book showed that the pickup van’s unladen weight was below 7,500 kg.
Source reference: para. 7Applying Rambha Devi, the Court held that the LMV-licence/transport-endorsement objection did not establish a breach of policy terms.
Source reference: paras. 6–7On contributory negligence, the pickup driver did not testify or contest the claim, and the insurer did not secure his presence; the FIR and charge-sheet were also against that driver.
Source reference: para. 8The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal’s negligence finding on the evidence before it.
Source reference: para. 8Holding
The Court answered both issues against the insurer, dismissed both appeals, and confirmed the Tribunal’s award.
It directed the Tribunal to disburse the awarded amount, with accrued interest, to the claimant after verification and deduction of any unpaid court fees.
Source reference: para. 10Acts & Sections Cited
4 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19884
Original Court PDF
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.vsCHETANBHAI LAXMANBHAI GAMIT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
