A driver holding a license for a light motor vehicle (not exceeding 7500 kg) is legally entitled to drive a transport vehicle without additional endorsement. Therefore, insurers cannot maintain a right of recovery against owners based solely on the absence of a specific transport vehicle endorsement.

$~6

*

%

+

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 380/2026 (for disposal of the present appeal)

1. This application has been filed by appellant seeking disposal of the present appeal in terms of the decision passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi , (2025) 3 SCC 95.

2. The matter had been kept on board by this Court pursuant to filing of the appeal, considering that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was seized of the matter which had been referred for consideration pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2017 14 SCC 663.

3. The decision has now been rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court being in favour of the appellants herein; accordingly, this present application has been filed.

4. The background facts are that in a road accident which occurred on 14th August 2014 at 8.15 P.M. near Shivalik Road, New Delhi, one Brij Kishore Mahto (claimant/respondent no. 4 herein) had sustained injuries allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1Y B 8717 by one Phool Badan (respondent no.3 herein). A claim petition was filed and the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was submitted.

5. The said vehicle was registered in the name of one Surinder Singh (respondent no. 2 herein) though it had been sold to Jai Kumar and Ravi Kumar (appellants herein) but the documents of transfer had not been executed since Form-29 was not completed.

6. The award was passed on the claim of Brij Kishore Mahto on 30th November 2017 granting compensation of Rs. 8,69,100/- in his favour along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till realization.

7. Before the MACT, the insurance company had raised an objection that they would have a right of recovery against appellants/owners considering that the driver Phool Badan was driving the vehicle with a license for LMV-NT and not for a commercial vehicle.

8. It was an admitted position that the vehicle was being driven as a tourist taxi and therefore, the insurance companies’ contention that their policy would only cover a situation where the driver possessed an effective and valid license to drive a commercial vehicle, would exonerate them from any liability.

9. This contention was accepted and the MACT directed that the insurance company shall pay the compensation awarded to claimant, but shall have the right to recover the same from the Phool Badan (driver) and the appellants herein.

10. Appellants, therefore, filed an appeal before this Court which has been subsisting on the Board, basing their claim on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra).

11. The decision was in context of an amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 (‘MV Act’) inserting Section 10 (2) (e) in the Act introducing the concept of a ‘transport vehicle’.

12. The Section 2 (21) of the MV Act provided a definition for Light Motor Vehicle (‘LMV’) which is extracted as under for reference:

“S. 2(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does