In an appeal against a motor accident compensation award, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held the appeal devoid of merit. The Court relied on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., noting its binding nature pending a larger bench reference, to dismiss the insurer's challenge.
Special Leave Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 35 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
_____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate, For Respondents : Shri Povas Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order On Board
03/08/2023
2
3
denied all the material allegations and contended that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle has not possessed valid driving license to drive the passenger carrying commercial vehicle, therefore, there was breach of insurance policy. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
4
having license to drive Light Motor Vehicles (LMV). Dealing with the issue, in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) it has been answered and held as under:
“60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or a tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving license to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 Kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 Kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A license issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-32001 in the form.”
“6. This Court is aware of the fact that the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14
5
SCC 663 has been doubted and referred to Larger Bench for re-consideration as per the decision in Bajaj Alliance (sic Allianz) General Insurance Company Limited vs Rambha Devi & Others, (2019) 12 SCC 816. The reference was mainly for the reason that some of the significant provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Section 4 (1) & 2; Section 7, Section 14 & proviso to Section 14(2)(a); Rule 5, Rule 31(2), (3), (4) etc were unfortunately not brought to the notice of the Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra). However, the Apex Court, still applied the law in Mukund Dewangan (supra) in M.S. Bhati vs National Insurance Company Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 248 which is virtually to the effect that the binding nature of the dictum in Mukund Dewangan (supra) continues, until the reference is answered by the Larger Bench, to the contrary.”
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge
Prakash
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed by the Insurance Company lacks substance given the binding precedent of Mukund Dewangan pending larger bench decision.
Whether the driver's valid Light Motor Vehicle license permits presuming insurance coverage for a passenger-carrying vehicle under dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company LimitedReferred¶24
(2017) 14 SCC 663 · Who else cites this
M.S. Bhati vs National Insurance Company LimitedReferred¶30
(2019) 12 SCC 248 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager
Sukhram
Gyan Datt Mishra
Arvind Singh Chandel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
