01Facts
The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of Kasturi Lal.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 6,10,400 with interest at 9% per annum, holding the driver and owner liable but rejecting the claim against the insurer.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4On appeal by the driver and owner, the High Court remanded the matter for determination of the insurer’s liability.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4On remand, the Tribunal held the insurer liable, relying on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4The insurer appealed, contending that the driver’s licence—though authorising him to drive a light motor vehicle—did not permit him to drive the goods-carrying three-wheeler
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–402Issues
i.Whether a driver holding a licence for a light motor vehicle was competent to drive a goods-carrying three-wheeler with a gross vehicle weight below 7,500 kg
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4, 7ii.Whether the insurer could avoid liability on the ground that the driver’s licence did not specifically authorise him to drive that three-wheeler
p. 3, 7 · ¶ 4, 903Law Applied
Under Sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a light motor vehicle licence covers a transport vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7,500 kg; no separate transport-vehicle endorsement is required for such a vehicle.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 7–8The Court relied on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011, decided 3 July 2017, and the Constitution Bench decision in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 5, which upheld that principle
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 7–8The insurer’s reliance on National Insurance Company Limited v. Shinder Kaur was not accepted in light of those Supreme Court decisions
p. 7 · ¶ 10Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166Section 10Section 2Section 3
04Reasoning
The driver held a light motor vehicle licence, and the goods-carrying three-wheeler he was driving had a gross vehicle weight below 7,500 kg.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 7–10Applying Mukund Dewangan, as upheld by the Constitution Bench in Rambha Devi, the Court held that the vehicle fell within the relevant light motor vehicle class and that no separate endorsement was necessary.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 7–10The driver was therefore competent to drive it, and the insurer could not avoid liability on the asserted licensing ground
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 7–1005Holding
The Court held that the driver was competent to drive the goods-carrying three-wheeler and that the insurer remained liable to pay the compensation.
p. 7 · ¶ 9–12Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Tribunal’s award dated 31 July 2018, the Court dismissed the appeal and disposed of any pending applications accordingly
p. 7 · ¶ 9–12Original Court PDF
United India Insurance Company LimitedvsSujata Rani And Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
