Insurance company sought recovery rights against driver and owner on the ground the driver lacked a valid licence for the car, holding only a Heavy Transport Vehicle licence. Relying on a Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling on light and transport vehicle licences, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
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.
Page 1 of 3
FAO-1979-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
208
Date of decision: 04.12.2025 FAO-1979-2008(O&M)
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Smt. Suman Devi & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Sahaj Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Bishamboo, Advocate for the appellant/insurance company.
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the Award dated 20.03.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari whereby claim petition No. 141/2006 dated 25.08.2006 filed by the claimants/respondents no.1 to 3 herein, has been allowed; and claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.15,59,100/-.
3CAC-0794 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) on the ground that respondent No.4 did not possess a valid Driving Licence on the date of accident.
SUNENA 2025.12.05 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-1979-2008 Page 2 of 3
pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Birender Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 22.07.2006 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.4, owned by respondent No.5, and insured by the appellant. The three claimants are the widow and two children of deceased Birender Singh, who was 49 years old at the time of accident. The appellant and respondents No.4 and 5 were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.
SUNENA 2025.12.05 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 3
FAO-1979-2008
in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2661595, wherein it is held that holder of Light Motor Driving Vehicle does not need separate authorisation to drive Transport Vehicle weighing less than 7500 kg. In the present case, it is the reverse inasmuch as it is admitted fact that respondent No.4 was authorised to drive Heavy Motor Transport Vehicle.
Needless to say, if the respondent no.4 is licensed to drive a Heavy Motor Transport Vehicle, then, it is but trite that he would be competent to drive the offending car, which is a Light Motor Vehicle weighing less than 7500
kg.
dismissed.
04.12.2025 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SUNENA 2025.12.05 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the insurer was entitled to recovery rights against the driver and owner on the ground that the driver held only a Heavy Transport Vehicle licence and not a valid licence for a light motor car
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha DeviRelied on¶7
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2661595
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Smt. Suman Devi
Others
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
