IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH XOBJC-209-2019 Date of Decision : 10.02.2025 RAJ KUMAR @ PAPPU & ANR. .... Appellants VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Sandeep Parkash Chahar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 and the cross-objector.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the driver and the owner of the vehicle being Eicher Tractor bearing registration No.HR-12-J- 6195 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) aggrieved by the award dated 26.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the driver and the owner (the appellants herein) were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, cross-objections being XOBJC-209-2019 have been filed by the claimant-respondent No.2 herein.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that respondent No.1-Insurance Company was not held liable to pay the compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a licence for driving a tractor and that the licence was only for driving a motor car and a scooter. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that motor car falls in the definition of Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) as per Section 2 Sub-Section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that as per Section 2(21) in the definition of Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) even a tractor, unladen weight of which is less than 7,500 kilograms, is also covered. It is still further the contention of the learned counsel that once the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a licence for driving a motor car, the same would be valid for a tractor as well. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 111]

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company has contended that a licence of a light motor car would not be valid for driving a tractor. It is further the contention that the licence in the present case was only for riding a scooter or a motor car and not for Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) and as such the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) would not be applicable.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence for a scooter and a motor car. Section

2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under :

‘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 not exceed 7500 kilograms.’

7. A motor car specifically has been mentioned as falling under the heading Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) so as the tractor with an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kilograms. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company that since the licence was for a motor car and not for Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) and hence the licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was not valid for driving a tractor, deserves to be rejected. Since the licence was for a motor car, the same would necessarily be read as a licence for Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) as well. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) has held as under :

‘(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs would be a light motor vehicle and also motor c