Uttarakhand High CourtInsurance LawTransport, Maritime, and Aviation Law

LMV License Holder Can Drive Transport Vehicle Under 7500 KG Without Additional Endorsement Summary: The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal, affirming the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. Relying on the Supreme Court's constitution bench ruling in *Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2025)*, the Court held that a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license for vehicles with a gross weight not exceeding 7,500 kg is legally permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without a specific additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANYv.POOJA

LMV License Holder Can Drive Transport Vehicle Under 7500 KG Without Additional Endorsement Summary: The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal, affirming the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. Relying on the Supreme Court's constitution bench ruling in *Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2025)*, the Court held that a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license for vehicles with a gross weight not exceeding 7,500 kg is legally permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without a specific additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY vs POOJA. Uttarakhand High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative regarding the validity of the license, holding that no additional authorization is required for an LMV license holder to drive a transport vehicle within the prescribed weight limit

It also directed

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment and dismissed the appeal

The compensation awarded by the MACT was upheld

01Facts

The claimants (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed a claim petition following a motor accident on October 21, 2022, where a truck (UK-07 CB-2424) hit a motorcycle, resulting in the death of Ravindra and injuries to Pooja

pp. 1-2

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Tehri Garhwal, vide order dated December 12, 2024, held the truck driver negligent and awarded Rs. 18,47,860/- compensation to the claimants

p. 1, 4

The appellant Insurance Company challenged the award primarily on the ground that the driver lacked a specific "transport vehicle" endorsement on his driving license

p. 4, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver.

¶ 9(i)

ii.2. Whether the truck driver held a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, specifically considering the lack of a transport vehicle endorsement for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).

¶ 9(iii) / para. 11

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines "light motor vehicle" as a transport vehicle or omnibus with a gross weight not exceeding 7500 kg

¶ 13

The Court relied on the Constitution Bench precedent of the Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi and others (2025) 3 SCC 95, which established that a person holding an LMV license under Section 10(2)(d) is permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" of the same weight class without requiring a specific endorsement under Section 10(2)(e)

¶ 11, 14

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 2Section 10

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the appellant’s sole substantive ground for appeal was the absence of a "transport" endorsement on the driver’s license

¶ 11, 15

the Court observed that under the statutory definition of Section 2(21), the truck in question fell within the LMV category as its weight did not exceed 7500 kg

¶ 13-14

Applying the ratio of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, the Court reasoned that for licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes and an overlap exists

¶ 14

Consequently, the driver’s existing LMV license was legally sufficient to operate the transport vehicle in question, rendering the Insurance Company’s objection regarding the invalidity of the license unsustainable in law

¶ 15-16

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative regarding the validity of the license, holding that no additional authorization is required for an LMV license holder to drive a transport vehicle within the prescribed weight limit

¶ 15

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment and dismissed the appeal

¶ 16-17

The compensation awarded by the MACT was upheld

p. 1
Uttarakhand High Court

Original Court PDF

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANYvsPOOJA

Uttarakhand High Court · May 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment