Insurer appealed a motor accident compensation award, arguing the driver lacked a valid licence and the tractor was used commercially. The court upheld the tribunal's reasoned findings and, relying on the Supreme Court's Bajaj Alliance ruling on LMV licences for vehicles under 7,500 kg, 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.
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1930/2007
National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Station Road, Jhunjhunu, Through Manager
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. |
V.P. Mathur |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
P.L. Sharma |
| Mr. | Rajesh Kumar for | |
| Mr. | Indresh Sharma |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
09/03/2026
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
[CMA-1930/2007]
(2 of 10)
award dated 06.01.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Addl. & District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.3), Jhunjhunu in Accident Claim Case No.308/2006 titled as Smt. Amar Kanwar & Anr. Vs. Revat Ram & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal awarded the claim of Rs.3,73,000/- in favour of the respondents-claimants herein.
“1- vk;k iz'uxr okgu la[;k vkj-ts-18 vkj-,-0262 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 1 jsorjke ds }kjk fnukad 28-11-05 dks eksM+k igkM+ >qU>quw ds ikl mDr okgu dks mis{kk@mrkoysiu ls pykdj dh xbZ nq?kZVuk esa izR;{k ifj.kkeLo:i eksgu flag dh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks xbZ \ 2- vk;k mDr okgupkyd rc mDr okgu Lokeh foi{kh la[;k 2 o 3 ds fu;kstu esa gksdj mlh ds fgrkFkZ ,oa ykHkkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk] tks okgu fof/kd o izHkkoh :i ls chfer Fkk \
(3 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
[CMA-1930/2007]
3- vk;k foi{kh la[;k 4 chek daiuh }kjk vius fyf[kr dFku ds izkjafHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo'ks"k dFku ds en~nsutj chek daiuh vius nkf;Ro ls eqDr gks ldrh gS] ugha rks bldk D;k izHkko gS \
5- vuqrks"kA”
(4 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
[CMA-1930/2007]
vehicle was properly insured and the driver was having the required driving license and further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Vs. Rambha Devi and Ors.1 , examined the issue of required license of driving the tractor including the issue of permissible weight of the vehicle i.e. not exceeding 7,500 kg..
“blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ dk rdZ gS fd ekeyk >wBk ugha cuk;k x;k gSA
VsªDVj ykbV eksVj Oghdy dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gSA izLrqr U;k;n`"Vkar VsDl ds laca/k esa gksus ds dkj.k os bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k] bl ekeys ij pLik ugha gksrs gSaA nq?kZVuk lkoZtfud jkLrs dh gS ftldk mYys[k uD'kk ekSdk esa gSA ekeyk lgh o lR; gS vkSj chek
(5 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
[CMA-1930/2007]
daiuh dh ftEesnkjh curh gSA chek daiuh us vius rdkZas ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lqn<+ lk{; is'k ugha dh gS o rduhdh ,srjkt ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZx.k dk Dyse [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrkA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZx.k us vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa gekjs le{k fuEufyf[kr U;k;n"Vkar voyksdukFkZ izLrqr fd,%&
1- 2006 vkj-,-vkj- ist 548¼jkt0½ j?kqifr cuke dyqvk ,oa vU;
2- 2006 vkj-,-vkj- ist 508¼jkt0½ vksfj,UVy ba';ksjsal daiuh ,oa vU; cuke gqDeflag ,oa vU;
9- geus mHk;i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk izLrqr U;k;n"Vkarksa dk llEeku voyksdu fd;kA gLrxr ekeys esa nq?kZVukLFky vke dPpk jkLrk gS tks uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ 5 esa ^^,Dl^^ LFkku ls nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] bl dkj.k bls lkoZtfud LFkku gh ekuk tkosxkA fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ chek daiuh ds rdZ esa dksbZ cy izrhr ugha gksrk gSA xokg j?kqohj flag ds c;ku ds vuqlkj nq?kZVukLFky dk'kh ikaMs dh yht ds ikl gS] vr% ,srjkt mi;qDr ugha gSA bl ekeys esa pkyd ds ikl Mªkbfoax ykblsal gYds eksVj okgu dk gS tks izn'kZ 12 is'k fd;k x;k gSA ;g ykbZlsal fnukad 259-97 ls 30-04-2013 rd oS/k gSA izn'kZ 13 LokfeRo ds iathdr izek.ki= esa VsªDVj dk ynku jfgr otu 1835 fdyksxzke vafdr gS bl dkj.k eksVj Oghdy ,DV 1988 dh /kkjk 2¼21½ esa ykbZV eksVj Oghdy dh ifjHkk"kk ds vUrxZr VsªDVj] dkj] jksM jksyj dk ynku jfgr otu 7500 fdyksxzke ls vf/kd ugha gksrk gS] blls Li"V gS fd VsªDVj dk ynku jfgr otu 1835 fdyksxzke gh gS bl dkj.k ;g ykbZV eksVj Oghdy gS] ftldk pkyd ds ikl oS/k pkyd vuqKki= FkkA chek iksyhlh izn'kZ la[;k 1 esa
(6 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
[CMA-1930/2007]
rks ,sls okgu dks yuZj ykblsal okyk O;fDr Hkh pyk ldus dk izko/kku gSA vUos"k.k ds nkSjku iqfyl }kjk tks VsªDVj tfj, QnZ izn'kZ 8 tIr fd;k x;k Fkk og fcuk Vªksyh dk gS] gkykafd chek iksyhlh esa Vªksyh dk Hkh izko/kkku fd;k gqvk gSA bl laca/k esa chek dEiuh us dksbZ Bksl lk{; is'k ugha dh gS] ,slh voLFkk esa chek daiuh }kjk mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ka mi;qDr ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZx.k dk ;g rdZ mi;qDr izrhr gksrk gS fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dk tks U;k;n`"Vkar gekjs le{k vizkFkhZ chek daiuh dh vksj ls is'k fd;k x;k gS og dsoy VsDl ds ekeys ls lacaf/kr Fkk tks gekjs fouez er esa Hkh bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa p'ik ugha gksrk gSA Qyr% ;g rudh vizkFkhZ la[;k 4 chek daiuh ds fo:) fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA”
(7 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
[CMA-1930/2007]
7,500 kgs.) as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, can operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class;
(ii) Whether the second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of MV Act? Is the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of MV Act unrelated to the licensing framework under the MV Act and the MV Rules;
(iii) Whether the additional eligibility criteria prescribed in the MV Act and MV Rules for ‘transport vehicles’ would apply to those who are desirous of driving vehicles weighing below 7,500 kgs and have obtained a license for LMV class under Section 10(2)(d) of the MV Act;
(iv) What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 which substituted four classes under clauses (e) to (h) in Section 10 with a single class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 10(2)(e)?”
The relevant paragraph of the judgment, wherein the Court has recorded the conclusion while answering the reference, is reproduced as under:-
“125. 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 a LMV license. We must however clarify that the 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.
126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the definition of LMV under Section 2(21) of the MV Act ex-
(8 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
[CMA-1930/2007]
plicitly provides what a ‘Transport Vehicle’ ‘means’. This Court must ensure that neither provision i.e. the definition under Section 2(21) or the second part of Section 3(1) which concerns the necessity for a driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ is reduced to a dead letter of law. Therefore, the emphasis on ‘Transport Vehicle’ in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of the ‘medium’ and ‘heavy’ vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure.
127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier discussed at length. An authoritative pronouncement by this Court would prevent insurance companies from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class.
128. In an era where autonomous or driver-less vehicles are no longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms are a modern reality, the licensing regime cannot remain static. The amendments that have been carried out by the Indian legislature may not have dealt with all possible concerns. As we were informed by the Learned Attorney General that a legislative exercise is underway, we hope that a comprehensive amendment to address the statutory lacunae will be made with necessary corrective measures.
129. Just to flag one concern, the legislature through the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2)(e) in order to introduce ‘transport vehicle’ as a separate class could not have intended to merge light motor vehicle (which continued as a distinct class) along with medium, and heavy vehicles into a single class. Else, it would give rise to a situation in which Sri (our hypothetical character), wanting to participate in the cycling sport, is put through the rigorous training relevant only for a multisport like Triathlon, which requires a much higher degree of endurance and athleticism. The effort therefore should be to ensure that the statute remains practical and workable.
130. 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
(9 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
[CMA-1930/2007]
the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common man’s driver Sri, with LMV license, 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 MV Act and 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 7,500 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 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. 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.
131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:-
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization 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.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes 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.
(10 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JP:10012]
[CMA-1930/2007]
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’.
(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but 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 MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.”
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J
Monika/24
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurer could repudiate liability on the ground that the driver lacked the requisite licence for driving a tractor-trolley.
Whether use of an agricultural tractor commercially violated policy terms so as to exempt the insurer from liability.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Vs. Rambha Devi and Ors.Relied on¶10
(2025) 3 SCC 95 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Station Road, Jhunjhunu
Smt. Amar Kanwar W/o Late Shri Mohan Singh
Shatiman Singh S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh
Jitendra Singh S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh
Prabhu Singh S/o Late Peerdan Singh
Revat Ram S/o Mohan Ram
Ravi Chirania
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
