##PAGE1##

FAO-6041-2012 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-6041-2012 (O&M)

IFFCO TOKIO GEN INS CO. LTD.

..Appellant

Versus

AMRIT LAL AND ORS.

..Respondents

Reserved on: 24.04.2026

Pronounced on: 27.04.2026

Uploaded on : 04.05.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO

Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate

for appellant-Insurance Company.

Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Advocate and

Mr. Sumit Tiwana, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

None for respondents No.2 and 3.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance

Company against the award dated 03.09.2012 passed in a claim petition filed

under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim

petition filed by the claimant was allowed and appellant-Insurance Company

was made liable to pay the compensation.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.2006 the claimant had

come to Kaithal to purchase articles and vegetables for his shop. When the

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.04 14:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6041-2012 (O&M)

-2-

claimant was going back to village Balu, he, Krishan Kumar and Shiv

Kumar went upto village Kassan in a jeep. From village Kassan, claimant

Shiv Kumar and Krishan Lal took a three-wheeler to got to their village

Balu, which was being driven by respondent No. 1. The said three-wheeler

was new and applied for. When they reached at village Balu near Mini Bank,

the respondent no. 1 could not control the said three-wheeler due to sudden

arrival of a dog in front of three-wheeler, the three-wheeler turned turtle

once. Krishan Kumar received minor injuries and claimant received serious

injuries in that accident. The said accident occurred while claimant was

sitting in the three-wheeler driven by respondent No.1.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and

contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies denying

the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:-

“1. Whether claimant sustained injuries in a motor

vehicular accident which allegedly took place on 09.07.2006 at

about 11.00 AM in the area of village Balu on account of rash

and negligent driving by respondent no. 1 while driving

offending three-wheeler bearing registration No. HR-64-4944?

OPP.

2. If issue no. 1 is proved, to what amount of

compensation the claimant is found entitled to and from whom?

OPP.

3. Whether respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and

effective driving licence and the car was being driven in

violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, at

the time of accident? OPR-3

4. Relief”

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.04 14:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6041-2012 (O&M)

-3-

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their

respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence

on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant and

Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present

appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant–insurance company submits

that driver of the offending vehicle was holding licence only for a Light

Motor Vehicle (LMV) and not for a Light Transport Vehicle (LTV). He

further contends that the vehicle involved, being a three-wheeler used for

transport purposes, falls within the category of a transport vehicle.

Consequently, a licence authorizing the driving of a non-transport LMV

would not suffice to legally operate such a vehicle.

8. On this premise, it is argued that there was a clear breach of the

terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as well as the statutory

requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, he pra