The Chhattisgarh High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench judgment, holds that no separate endorsement is needed for holders of LMV licences to operate transport vehicles below 7,500 kg. The judgment upholds the existing law, providing clear binding precedent for all motor accident compensation matters in the state and reinforcing the approach to insurance liability and quantum for child fatality claims.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1572/2017 of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Uddeshwari CNR CGHC010099612017 |
| Date of Registration | 15-11-2017 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors., 2024 INSC 840; Thangavel & Ors., 2025 INSC 949) |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act—Claims, Insurance, Licensing, Compensation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that under Section 14(2b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the licence holder has not attained 50 years, the licence remains valid for 20 years or until age 50. Further, in line with the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors., no separate endorsement is needed for an LMV licence holder to drive a transport vehicle below 7,500 kg, except for legislatively created exceptions. On assessment of quantum, the court applied Supreme Court guidance in Thangavel & Ors. that set notional income and applicable multipliers for minor fatalities, affirming just and fair compensation principles. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | MV Act provisions (Sections 2(21), 3(1), 10, 14), Supreme Court case law on LMV licence scope, and compensation standards for minors. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 25.06.2016, a motorcycle carrying Shivlal (who died in the accident), his wife, and son was hit by an auto-rickshaw, causing two fatalities. The claimants filed for compensation. The insurance company opposed claims, citing issues with the validity of the driver’s licence and alleged policy violations, and challenged the quantum awarded by the tribunal for the child. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, holding the insurance company liable. The insurance company appealed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in other jurisdictions, Insurance Claims Practice |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that a valid Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence is sufficient for driving transport vehicles below 7,500 kg; no additional endorsement is necessary except for specially legislated vehicles.
- Reiterates that insurance companies cannot evade liability on technical grounds relating to the absence of transport endorsement where the vehicle is in the LMV category.
- Applies recent Supreme Court guidelines for fixing compensation in claims involving death of minor children, including notional income standards and multiplier approach.
- Lawyers can rely on this judgment to rebut insurance company defences based purely on absence of a ‘transport’ endorsement for LMV drivers in similar factual contexts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court carefully reviewed documentary and oral evidence regarding the validity of the driver’s licence. It found no persuasive evidence disproving validity and held the licence was effective as per statutory provisions (Section 14(2b) of the MV Act) since the holder was under 50 and within the 20-year validity period.
- Addressing the need for a transport endorsement, the court directly followed the constitutional bench in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2024), which held LMV licence holders may legally drive transport vehicles under 7,500 kg without further endorsement, barring special cases (e-rickshaws, hazardous goods).
- The claim regarding excess quantum for the minor’s death was adjudicated by reference to Thangavel & Ors., in which the Supreme Court set standards for notional income and applicable multipliers for computation of compensation for minor children’s deaths.
- On all points, the tribunal’s order was held in conformity with the law and supported by reasoned application of binding Supreme Court authority.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Insurance Company):
- The driver’s licence was expired and renewed only after five years, which violates the 30-day renewal requirement and thus nullifies liability.
- The permit of the offending vehicle was not produced before the trial court, constituting a fundamental violation of the insurance policy.
- The compensation awarded to the claimants was excessive, especially in the case regarding the minor child.
Respondents (Claimants):
- The impugned award is legal, justified, and warrants no interference by the High Court.
Factual Background
On 25 June 2016, an auto-rickshaw collided with a motorcycle carrying Shivlal, his wife, and their child, causing the deaths of Shivlal and his 6-year-old son. The claimants, being the family of the deceased, sought compensation from the owner, driver, and insurer of the auto-rickshaw. The insurance company disputed the claims, alleging invalid licence and permit for the offending vehicle and challenged the quantum of compensation awarded. The Claims Tribunal found in favour of the claimants on both liability and quantum, leading to the insurance company’s appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- The court analysed Section 14(2b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that for licence holders under age 50, a licence is valid for 20 years or until the holder’s 50th birthday.
- “Light Motor Vehicle” was interpreted as per Section 2(21), and in line with the Supreme Court’s view in Rambha Devi, holding that additional endorsements for transport vehicles under 7,500 kg are not necessary.
- The court also noted the application of Supreme Court guidelines for compensation calculation in cases of minor fatalities as per judgments like Thangavel & Ors.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion was mentioned in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court vacated the interim order and directed the Claims Tribunal to expedite execution within three months, ensuring prompt delivery of compensation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies binding precedent from the Supreme Court (Bajaj Alliance v. Rambha Devi, 2024 INSC 840; Thangavel, 2025 INSC 949).