LMV LICENSE HOLDER CAN LEGALLY OPERATE TRANSPORT VEHICLE WITH GROSS WEIGHT BELOW 7500 KG.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle held a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident to drive a transport vehicle.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal but modified the award to ensure "just compensation" following the finding that the driver was duly licensed and the petitioner was entitled to an enhanced compensation package.

It also directed

The total compensation was increased from Rs. 2,22,000/- to Rs. 5,13,000/-, maintaining the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, with liability remaining on the appellant-insurer.

01Facts

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar, sustained injuries in a roadside accident on May 28, 2015, when a Bolero (Vehicle No. HP01K-5100), driven by respondent No. 1, rolled into a gorge at Mandi, H.P.

¶ 4.1-4.2

The petitioner suffered 10% permanent disability in his right lower limb and was hospitalized for 21 days.

¶ 4.3, 4.4

A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ("M.V. Act").

¶ 1

The MACT-II, Kinnaur, awarded Rs. 2,22,000/- with 7.5% interest, fastening liability on the appellant-insurer.

¶ 2

The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the driver lacked a valid license for a transport vehicle, the accident was due to mechanical failure (as evidenced by a police cancellation report), and the compensation was excessive.

¶ 15-20

02Issues

i.1. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle held a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident to drive a transport vehicle.

¶ 12 (Issue 5), para 32

ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT falls within the definition of "just compensation" under the M.V. Act.

¶ 23, para 25

iii.3. Whether the police cancellation report regarding the criminal case absolves the owner/insurer of liability in a claim for compensation.

¶ 15-16

03Law Applied

Section 166 and Section 168 of the M.V. Act, emphasizing that the statute is beneficent legislation intended to provide "just compensation".

¶ 24

Supreme Court precedent in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Others (2025), which established that a driver with a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license can legally drive a transport vehicle weighing below 7,500 kg without a separate endorsement.

¶ 34

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) for future prospects.

¶ 48

Sidram v. Division Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023) for future prospects in injury cases.

¶ 47

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) for assessment of disability and pecuniary/non-pecuniary damages.

¶ 39

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 168 Section 166 Section 10 Section 3 Section 2

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 55

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge to the driver’s license, noting that the Bolero's gross weight did not exceed 7,500 kg; thus, the driver's LMV license was valid per Rambha Devi.

¶ 33-35

The Court revised the petitioner’s monthly income to Rs. 9,000/- as a skilled mason, rather than minimum wages, given the State’s urbanization.

¶ 37

The Court determined that a 10% physical disability translated to 20% functional disability because the petitioner, as a mason, could no longer carry heavy loads.

¶ 46

It added 25% for future prospects based on the claimant’s age (46 years).

¶ 48-49

The Court also increased non-pecuniary damages, noting that the MACT failed to account for the intensity of a 21-day hospitalization and a four-month convalescence period.

¶ 41-45