A driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle license can operate a transport vehicle under 7,500 kg without additional authorization, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Order

09/05/2025

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.06.2001, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Balotra, Rajasthan, in M.A.C. Case No. 33/1999 (Malaram v. Salim Khan & Ors.), wherein the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 43,000/- in favour of the claimant along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the application (i.e., 17.05.1999).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the above-mentioned claim application was filed on 17.05.1999 by the claimant-Malaram, stating therein that on 2nd March, 1999 at around 4 p.m., the claimant, along with one Bhoma Ram and Sona Ram, were walking from the temple situated in their village Charlai Khurd, on the road, and suddenly a car bearing No. RJ-27-T-0074 came on the road from the direction of Jodhpur and was being driven rashly and negligently by Salim Khan, the driver. It was stated that the car belonged to Aslam Khan. It was further averred that the car dashed into him & due to the accident, his left leg got injured and, in relation to the same, a criminal case under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC was lodged at Police Station, Kalyanpur, having F.I.R. No.6/99. It was stated that due to the fracture, the claimant-Malaram remained admitted at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, from 2^nd March 1999 till 9^th March, 1999 and he had to stay in the hospital and his leg was also plastered. The claimant stated that due to the injury, he remained confined to the bed for a long period and could not undertake his agricultural work for almost five to six months. The claimant thus claimed a sum of Rs.1,11,200/- as compensation.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company filed a reply to the above-mentioned claim application and raised the ground that the Insurance Company was given no information about the incident as also a ground was raised that it was duty of the owner to ensure that at the time the vehicle was being driven in his ownership, the driver had a valid permit to drive the vehicle. A specific ground was taken that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit, as the licence which was possessed by the driver was for light motor vehicle, whereas the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle, as it was an Ambassador car that was being driven as a taxi. A formal reply was filed on behalf of the owner and the driver of the vehicle.

4. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues for its adjudication, wherein issue no.3 was with regard to whether the driver of the vehicle had a valid permit or not. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined himself as AW-1 and also got Bhoma Ram examined as AW-2. The claimant also exhibited 16 documents. In order to prove their defence, the Insurance Company/appellant examined Shri Rajesh Kumar Goyal, Senior Assistant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., as NAW-1.

5. Learned Tribunal by way of its judgment and award dated 01.06.2001, decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and passed an award granting compensation to the tune of Rs.43,000/- along with interest @9% from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of the claimant. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.

6. Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any ground as far as the quantum of the award is considered, and the only ground raised in the present appeal, as also argued by the learned counsel is to the effect that the driver was not holding the valid licence to drive the vehicle. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the driver, Salim Khan was having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and motorcycle, whereas the vehicle in question was a transport v