IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

I. XOBJC-273-CII-2016 in Charan Kaur @ Channo Devi and others …..Non-applicants/Appellants Vs.

Prabhu and Others .….Applicants/Respondents II. XOBJC-272-CII-2016 in FAO-5269-2012 Raj Kumar …..Non-applicant/Appellant Vs.

Prabhu and Others .….Applicants/Respondents Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for applicant/respondent No.2.

Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants/claimants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

A motor vehicular accident was caused on 25.05.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of Auto Rickshaw No. HR-69-8903 within the area of Sonipat, resul.ng in death of Resham Singh and injuries to Raj Kumar. Widow, minor son and mother of deceased Resham Singh filed claim pe..on bearing No. MVA Pe..on (RBT) No.34 of 2011 seeking compensa.on on account of death of Resham Singh; whereas injured Raj Kumar filed separate pe..on bearing No. MVA Pe..on (RBT) No.35 of 2011 seeking compensa.on on account of injuries sustained by him. These pe..ons were filed against driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle by impleading them as respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 respec.vely. The driver and owner did not contest the pe..ons before the Tribunal and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.08.2010. Respondent No.3- insurance company resisted the claim on the ground that respondent No.1- driver was not holding a valid and effec.ve driving license at the .me of accident and so, insurance company was liable to be exonerated.

2. Learned MACT, Sonipat vide a common award dated 13.09.2011 awarded compensa.on of ₹4,30,200/- along with interest, in favour of Smt. Charan Kaur etc. i.e. legal representa.ves of Resham Singh on account of death of said Resham Singh; whereas compensa.on of ₹63,900/- along with interest was allowed to injured Raj Kumar. The Tribunal held that the driver was holding driving license to drive motorcycle, car and jeep only, whereas the offending vehicle was an auto rickshaw and registered as Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), which he was not en.tled to drive. As such, the insurance company was directed to make payment of compensa.on to the claimants but with the right of recovery against the driver and owner.

3. FAO No.5268 of 2012 was filed by Charan Kaur etc. seeking enhancement in compensa.on, whereas FAO No.5269 of 2012 was filed by injured Raj Kumar for the same purpose. In both these FAOs, separate cross-objec.ons were filed by the owner of the offending vehicle- respondent No.2 so as to exempt his liability by contending that the driver had a valid and effec.ve license at the .me of accident.

4. The two FAOs were disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide a common order dated 03.12.2018, by allowing enhancement in compensa.on. However the cross-objec.ons were adjourned sine die so as to await the decision of the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.27787 of 2017 .tled “M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi and Others”

5. Today, learned counsel for the cross-objector has cited before this Court a Cons.tu.onal Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in “M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi and Others” reported as 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 5, wherein the issue rela.ng to the liability of the insurance company, when driver is not holding license for transport vehicle, was considered at length. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, aCer ci.ng numerous precedents concluded as under:

“131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Sec.on 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permiEed to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing addi.onal authoriza.on under Sec.on 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Ve