Insurer remains liable to indemnify third parties regarding heavy vehicles despite minor, non-causal driver licensing lapses.

The National Insurance Company (Appellant) challenged the judgment and award dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Junagadh, which awarded ₹6,73,000/- to the claimants for the death of 19-year-old Hitesh Pokiya in a vehicular accident on 01.11.2003

The Insurance Company contended it should be exonerated because the driver of the offending HGV Dumper held only an LMV license at the time of the accident, lacking the mandatory endorsement for transport/heavy vehicles

Additionally, they challenged the quantum, arguing that a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses was improper for an unmarried deceased

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, which establishes that the insurer must prove the breach of license conditions was the "root cause" of the accident and that the owner acted without due care

Regarding quantum, the Court applied Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp. (2009) 6 SCC 121 for the 50% deduction rule for unmarried persons

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 for prospective income and conventional heads

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) for filial consortium

It also invoked Order XLIII Rule 33 of the CPC to modify the award in the interest of justice

The Court found that while the driver lacked a specific HGV endorsement on the date of the accident (01.11.2003), he had previously held an HMV license for 30 years (1983–2003), which had expired only four months prior

Applying Swaran Singh, the Court held the Insurance Company failed to prove that the lack of institutional renewal was the "root cause" of the accident or that the owner failed to verify the driver's competence, given the driver's long experience

On quantum, the Court found the Tribunal erred by deducting only 1/3rd; as the deceased was unmarried, a 50% deduction was mandatory per Sarla Verma

However, the Court exercised its power to award "just compensation" by granting 40% future prospects and increasing amounts under conventional heads (consortium, estate, and funeral expenses) as per Pranay Sethi and Magma

The total award was reduced from ₹6,73,000/- to ₹5,86,700/- with 9% interest

The 50% deduction was applied to dependency, but this was offset by awarding ₹48,400 each to the parents for consortium and increasing funeral/estate expenses to ₹18,150 each

The appellant is entitled to a refund of the excess deposited amount (₹86,300)