LMV license holder entitled to drive transport vehicle of same class without specific endorsement.

The New India Assurance Company appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award dated June 20, 2016, which granted ₹8,03,551 to the claimants for a fatal accident occurring on May 7, 2005

The insurer challenged its liability, arguing the driver lacked a specific 'transport' endorsement on his Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license

The respondents (claimants) filed cross-objections seeking enhanced compensation and challenging the 10% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased

1. Whether the insurer is exonerated from liability if the driver holds an LMV license but lacks a specific endorsement to drive a 'transport vehicle' of the same class

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in its determination of the deceased's income and the application of future prospects

3. Whether the 10% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased was legally sustainable based on the accident site evidence

The Court applied the Five-Judge Bench decision in M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and Ors. (2025), which established that an LMV license holder can drive a transport vehicle not exceeding 7500 kg without a specific endorsement under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act

For compensation, it followed National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), regarding the calculation of "income minus tax," a 25% addition for future prospects for self-employed individuals aged 40-50, and standardized conventional heads with 10% biennial increases

Regarding liability, the Court found that the vehicle (Tata Mobile pick-up) was a Light Carriage Vehicle with a capacity of 2956 CC, falling under the LMV category; thus, per Rambha Devi, no transport endorsement was required

On quantum, the Court found the Tribunal erred by deducting housing loan interest from the deceased's gross income; the correct starting point is gross income minus only professional tax

While the Tribunal correctly ignored a post-accident Income Tax Return, it incorrectly applied a 30% future rise; the Court reduced this to 25% per Pranay Sethi for the 42-year-old deceased

The Court upheld the 10% contributory negligence because evidence showed the accident occurred at a cross-road and the impact points (rear of the scooty vs. side of the truck) suggested mutual negligence

Conventional heads were increased to include parental consortium and a 10% rise on funeral and estate expenses

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹8,03,551 to ₹9,86,627 (after 10% deduction for negligence) with 9% interest

The Court dismissed the Insurer’s appeal and partly allowed the Claimants’ cross-objections

The Court directed the Insurer to deposit the enhanced amount of ₹1,83,076 within six weeks and instructed the District Legal Service Authority to notify the claimants