Bombay High Court
Bhimrao S/O Mahadevrao Chandane vs Smt. Kaveri Wd/O Digambar Gaikwad And 7 ... on 9 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9455
1/9 Judg.fa.62.2010.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2010
Bhimrao s/o Mahadevrao Chandane
Aged : Major, Occu : Owner of Tractor, R/o
Mundefal, Tahsil Mehkar, District Buldhana. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Smt. Kaveri wd/o Digambar Gaikwad
Aged : 43 Years, Occu : Household;
2. Ku. Nita d/o Digambar Gaikwad
Aged : 22 Years, Occu : Education.
3. Ku. Kalpana d/o Digambar Gaikwad
Aged : 20 Years, Occu : Education;
4. Yogesh s/o Digambar Gaikwad
Aged : 18 Years, Occu : Education;
5. Nilesh s/o Digambar Gaikwad
Aged : 16 Years, Occu : Education;
Minor Claimant by his natural guardian
G.A.L. Mother - Respondent No.1.
6. Trambak s/o Mahadev Gaikwad
Aged : 69 Years, Occu : Nil;
7. Sau. Subhadrabai w/o Trambak Gaikwad
Aged : 61 Years, Occu : Nil;
All are R/o Amdapur, Tahsil Chikhli, District
Buldhana.
2/9 Judg.fa.62.2010.odt
8. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office
AMBAR, Station Road, At & Tq. Khamgaon,
District Buldhana. ... RESPONDENTS
Ms. Yoshita Paliwal h/f Mr. Vijaykumar Paliwal, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Mirza Tabish Thseen Ahmed, Advocate h/f Mr. A. M. Quazi, Advocate for
Respondent No.8.
None for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2025.
JUDGMENT
. By the present Appeal, owner of the vehicle is challenging the Judgment and Award dated 2/9/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana in MACP No. 178/2004.
2. The perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that the learned Tribunal, by considering the fact that the driver, who was driving the tractor and trolley, was having Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence and the same was not valid for driving transport vehicle, and amounts to the breach of insurance policy, exonerated the Insurance Company from payment of compensation amount and saddled the entire compensation on the Appellant along with interest thereon.
3/9 Judg.fa.62.2010.odt
3. As such, the issue involved in the present Appeal is, 'whether the driver of the offending vehicle having Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence can drive the transport vehicle ?'
4. To consider the issue involved in the matter, it will be appropriate to narrate the relevant facts in the matter.
5. It is the case of the Claimants that deceased Digambar Trambak Gaikwad was serving in Panchayat Samiti and earning Rs.11,895/- per month. He was cultivating agricultural land and getting Rs.32,000/- per year.
6. On 22/6/2004 while Digambar was travelling to Amdapur from Mehkar on his own Hero Honda motor-cycle, near the village Mundefal, the tractor bearing No. MH-28-D-2889 gave him a dash. As such, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the Claimants have claimed compensation in the matter.
7. The Insurance Company, by filing written statement denied the responsibility to pay the compensation by raising the ground that the driver of the tractor and trolley was not possessing the valid licence, and therefore, same amounts to breach of policy. Hence, they have contested the Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana.
4/9 Judg.fa.62.2010.odt
8. On the basis of abovesaid factual position, the learned Tribunal has recorded the finding that the driver was possessing the licence which is at Exhibit-62, which according to the Tribunal was Light Motor Vehicle. The said licence does not allow him to drive a transport vehicle i.e. tractor with trolley, as licence does not have endorsement for driving the transport vehicle. In support of this finding, relied upon the Judgments in cases of Natwar Parikh & Company Ltd. V/s State of Karnataka & Others, 2006 ACJ 1 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s D. Laxman & Others, 2007 ACJ 536.
9. In the present Appeal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited V/s Rambha Devi and Others, (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 95 . In this Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the question, 'as to whether a person holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) can drive a transport vehicle or not'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the matter, has drawn its conclusion in paragraph Nos.175 and 180 as under :
"175. 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 an LMV licence. We must however clarify that the 5/9 Judg.fa.62.2010.odt exceptions carved out by the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws, or vehicles carrying hazardous goods, will remain unaffected by the decision of this Court.
180. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal- regardless of whether the vehicle falls into "Transport" or "Non- Transport" category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7500 kg -- the quintessential common man's driver Sri, with LMV licence, can also drive a "transport vehicle". We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence-holder, driving a "transport vehicle", is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle ("medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger vehicle"), whose gross weight exceeds 7500 kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating transport vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating "transport vehicles"
(below 7500 kg), with their LMV driving licence. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court.
181. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under :
6/9 Judg.fa.62.2010.odt 181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the "transport vehicle"
class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a "transport vehicle", does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving "transport vehicles"
would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kg. i.e. "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger vehicle".
181.4. The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment."
In view of this Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is now clear that, if a driver holding LMV licence, can also drive a transport vehicle. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal are found to be 7/9 Judg.fa.62.2010.odt contrary to the provisions of law. Hence, same needs to be quashed and set aside.
10. It is further pointed out that by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.8 that policy issued by the Insurance Company was Kisan Package Policy, which was introduced for benefit of the farmers while they using the vehicle for agricultural purpose. However, in the present case, the tractor and trolley was used for transporting the earth. Hence, it is not covered under the Kisan Package Policy. But to prove this fact, Respondent No.8/Insurance Company did not lead evidence on this point. Nothing is placed on record to substantiate this submission. Furthermore, no findings are recorded by the learned Tribunal on this issue in the impugned Judgment.
11. In the present Appeal notices were duly served on the Respondent Nos.1 to 7, who are the Original Claimants in the matter, however, no one has put appearance on their behalf in the matter. So also they have not moved any application for withdrawal of amount deposited by the Appellant in this Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that because of financial constraint they might have not appeared in the present matter.
12. In the present matter, once conclusion is drawn that driver of 8/9 Judg.fa.62.2010.odt offending vehicle was/is having valid licence, the impugned Judgment does not survive. But, the Claimants seems to be not aware about this development due to their absence in the matter. In case matter is remanded back, they will get one more opportunity to participate in the matter before the Tribunal.
13. Hence, it will be fruitful to remand the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana to decide the Claim Petition afresh in the light of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
14. In the circumstances, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
(a) The Judgment and Award dated 2/9/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana in MACP No. 178/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(b) The matter is remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana to decide afresh. All issues are kept open to be raised and decided by the Tribunal.
(c) The amount deposited by the Appellant before this Court is directed to be transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana along with interest accrued thereon.
9/9 Judg.fa.62.2010.odt
(d) The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana is requested to
decide the Claim Petition, as expeditiously as possible, by considering the fact that the Claim Petition is of year 2004, and in any case, within a period of one year.
(e) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana to ensure the presence of Claimants before deciding the Claim Petition on its own merit.
15. First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] vijaya Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 20/09/2025 16:48:49