271 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 12.11.2025 FAO-54-2017 (O&M)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGER ....Appellant Versus JAGTAR SINGH & ORS ...Respondents FAO-1182-2017 (O&M)

JAGTAR SINGH ....Appellant Versus RAJENDRA KUMAR AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Ms. Veena Ashwani Talwar, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Avdocate for the appellant in FAO-54-2017 and for respondent/Insurance Co. in FAO-1182-2017.

Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Sourav Goyal, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-1182-2017 and for respondent No.3 in FAO-54-2017.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

These two appeals are directed against the Award passed by MACT, Moga whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1988 Act’) by the claimant seeking compensation on account of injury suffered by him in a motor-vehicular accident, dated 16.07.2012, has been allowed.

2. FAO No.54 of 2017 is at the behest of the Insurance Company disputing its liability claiming that the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence. The driving licence was valid for Non-Transport LMV from 03.12.2007 to 02.12.2027 and is deficient for want of the requisite endorsement qua Goods Carriage. The offending vehicle has a laden weight of 12000 Kgs and thus cannot be treated as LMV.

2.1. Counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi and others, (2025) 3 SCC 95 and submits that the issue is fully covered in favour of Insurance Company.

3. FAO No.1182 of 2017 is at the behest of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. As per the claimant, he suffered locomotor permanent disability. He lost both of his legs. Tribunal ought to have compensated the claimant treating his functional disability as 100% instead of taking into consideration permanent disability of 90%.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

6. Licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle has come on record, as Exhibit R-3. From a bare perusal thereof, it reveals that the driver was licensed to drive Light Motor Vehicle, LMV-COM from 03.12.2007 to 02.12.2027. There is another endorsement. As per which, the driver was licensed to drive Transport Vehicle from 05.03.2012 till

04.03.2015. The accident is dated 16.07.2012.

7. Thus, the issue is :

‘Whether the driver possessed valid driving licence or not on the date of accident?’

8. Section 10 of 1988 Act deals with Form and Contents of licenses to drive. The same reads as under:

“10. Form and contents of licences to drive.—(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:—

(a) motor cycle without gear;

(b) motor cycle with gear;

(c) invalid carriage;

(d) light motor vehicle; 2 [(e) transport vehicle;]

(i) road-roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.

9. ‘Transport Vehicle’ is defined under Section 2(47). The same reads as under:

2(47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;

10. The precise issue was dealt by Supreme Court in detail in Rambha Devi’s case (supra). While concluding the issue, Supreme Court observed as under:

“125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for a separate endorsement for operating a `Transport Vehicle', if a driver already holds a LMV license. We must however clarify that the exceptions carved out by the legislature for special vehicle