Insurance company must prove gross vehicle weight exceeds 7,500 kg to avoid liability for LMV license holder.

On December 19, 2014, the deceased, Dashrathbhai Parmar, was traveling as a laborer in an Eicher Tempo (Reg. No. GJ-9-V-6886) to unload cotton

The vehicle hit an overbridge angle, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kheda, awarded Rs. 5,99,550/- with 9% interest, holding the deceased 25% contributorily negligent

The Insurance Company appealed this judgment, seeking to be exonerated from liability on the grounds that the driver did not possess a valid driving license to operate a "transport vehicle"

1. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award when the driver held a license for Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) but was operating a vehicle with a gross weight allegedly exceeding the LMV threshold

2. Whether the Insurance Company successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding the driver’s lack of a valid license for the specific class of vehicle involved

The court's reasoning was governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically concerning the classification of vehicles based on unladen and gross weight

It evaluated the definition of a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) as a transport vehicle or omnibus with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kg

The court further referenced the legal principles established by the Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95, which clarifies the licensing requirements for transport vehicles of a certain weight

The High Court examined the evidence—specifically the RC Book (Exh. 22) and the Driving License (Exh. 23)—and found that the driver was authorized to drive LMV and MCWG classes of vehicles

While the Insurance Company argued the vehicle was a transport vehicle with a gross weight of 8,800 kg, the Court noted that the unladen weight was only 2,800 kg

Critically, the Insurance Company failed to examine any witnesses from the RTO to prove that the gross weight at the time of the accident exceeded 7,500 kg or to verify if any transport endorsements were missing

The Court determined that the Rambha Devi precedent did not assist the appellant because they failed to provide factual evidence that the vehicle exceeded the 7,500 kg threshold, rendering their defense "vague" and unproven

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s award

It directed the Tribunal to disburse the entire awarded amount to the claimants and ordered the transmission of any deposited statutory amounts to the lower tribunal