IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.03.2025 Harpal & Another ....Appellants VERSUS Reliance General Insurance Co. and Others . ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ram Pal Kohli, Advocate for Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 6.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) challenging the impugned award dated 01.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereby the Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation.

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. In the present appeal the only challenge laid by the learned counsel for the appellants is to the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company (respondent No.1 herein) on the ground that the driver of the school van bearing Registration No.HR-37B-5260 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) did not possess a driving licence to drive the same inasmuch as he was possessing a driving licence only to drive a motorcycle/scooter with gear, car, jeep and tractor, and his driving licence (Ex.R1) did not bear any endorsement authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle. In this regard learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 111] to contend that the driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) would also permit the driving of a vehicle unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. Learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that since the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 2960 kgs. as per its registration certificate, hence, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is wrong.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company has contended that licence of a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) would not be valid for driving a school van and that the licence of the driver in the present case did not bear any endorsement authorizing him to drive the said school van and hence there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal. He would further contend that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) is not applicable in the present case.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence (Ex.R1) to drive a motorcycle without gear, motorcycle/scooter with gear, car/jeep and tractor. A perusal of the registration certificate (Ex.R2) reveals that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 2960 kgs. 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. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company that since the driving licence was only to drive a motorcycle without gear, motorcycle/scooter with gear, car/jeep and tractor and that the same did not bear any endorsement authorizing the driver to drive a transport vehicle and therefore the finding of the Tribunal is correct deserves to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) wherein it was 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 car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kgs and h