Lack of a valid licence for a gearless moped does not bar the injured claimant’s compensation claim.

On 29 September 2006, a road accident occurred between a Hero Puck moped bearing registration No. GJ-9-J-2183 and a jeep bearing registration No. GJ-9-M-816 on the Idar–Himmatnagar Road near village Dhandha.

The driver and pillion rider of the moped sustained serious injuries, resulting in MACP Nos. 1146 of 2006 and 1119 of 2006 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar.

The Tribunal held the moped driver, Usmanbhai Jamalbhai Nedariya, 10% negligent and the jeep driver 90% negligent.

It partly allowed the pillion rider’s claim but dismissed the appellant’s claim on the ground that he did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the gearless Hero Puck moped.

The appellant challenged that dismissal before the High Court.

Whether the appellant, as the driver of the Hero Puck moped, was negligent to the extent of 10% and the jeep driver to the extent of 90% in causing the accident.

Whether the appellant’s alleged absence of a valid driving licence justified dismissal of his motor accident compensation claim.

Whether the claim petition was required to be remanded to the Tribunal for determination of compensation on merits.

The Court applied the beneficial and remedial object of the Motor Vehicles Act, holding that a claimant’s alleged failure to possess a valid driving licence cannot, by itself, defeat his claim for compensation arising from injuries caused in a motor accident, particularly where negligence has already been apportioned between the vehicles.

The principles of contributory negligence require compensation to be assessed with due regard to the claimant’s established share of negligence; here, the Tribunal’s finding of 10% negligence against the moped driver and 90% against the jeep driver was treated as binding for the remand.

The Court relied on the statutory scheme and scope of the Motor Vehicles Act without citing a specific statutory provision or precedent.

The Tribunal had already found, on the basis of the pleadings, FIR, accident panchnama, medical evidence and the insurer’s pursis, that the appellant was only 10% negligent while the jeep driver was 90% negligent.

Nevertheless, it dismissed the appellant’s claim solely because he allegedly lacked a valid licence to drive the gearless moped.

The High Court held that this approach was contrary to the scope and object of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the licence issue could not justify rejection of the claim altogether.

Since the finding on comparative negligence remained operative, the appropriate course was to set aside the dismissal and direct the Tribunal to calculate just, fair and adequate compensation after accounting for the appellant’s 10% negligence.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 7 September 2009 insofar as it dismissed MACP No. 1119 of 2006.

The claim petition was remanded to the Tribunal for determination of compensation on merits and in accordance with law, keeping in view the established negligence ratio of 10% against the Hero Puck driver and 90% against the jeep driver.

The parties were directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 15 October 2026, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the claim preferably within three months.