LMV License Holder Authorized to Operate Transport Vehicle Under 7500kg Without Specific Additional Endorsement

The Appellant/Insurance Company challenged the award dated 10/01/2020 passed by the VIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, in Claim Case No. 30/2019.

The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 1,65,884/- to Respondent No. 1 (the claimant) and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.

The Appellant contested liability on two grounds: first, that the driver of the offending vehicle (a Light Motor Vehicle) lacked a valid driving license, and second, that the owner lacked a valid permit as required under Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident to operate a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).

Whether the Insurance Company established that the offending vehicle was being operated without a valid permit in violation of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court applied Section 10(2)(d) and Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the classification of driving licenses.

It relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi and others (2025) 3 SCC 954, which held that a driver holding a license for the Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class is permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" of a gross weight under 7500 kg without requiring a specific additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e).

Furthermore, the burden of proof regarding the absence of a valid permit lies with the Insurance Company, requiring specific evidence related to the offending vehicle.

Regarding the first issue, the Court analyzed the testimony of the Insurance Company’s own witness, Shivat Kumar Yadav (NA.W.-1) from the RTO Office, who admitted that the driver’s license (Ex. D/1) fully empowered him to drive the vehicle as it fell under the LMV category.

Applying the Rambha Devi precedent, the Court found that no additional endorsement was necessary.

Regarding the second issue, the Court observed that the Insurance Company’s pleadings were "vague". Critically, the documentary evidence produced by the RTO witness pertained to Vehicle No. CG 13/AE 4920, whereas the actual offending vehicle was Registration No. CG 13/Q 0697.

Consequently, the Court found there was no evidence on record to prove the lack of a permit for the specific vehicle involved in the accident.

The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal fastening liability on the Insurance Company was upheld. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.