Bombay High Court
LEELABAI GANGADHAR NARWADE AND ORSversusUNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ABHAY S WAGHWASE
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the insurer remains jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
Summary
The legal heirs of the deceased Gangadhar filed a death claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that a tractor collided with his motorcycle, causing his death. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held United India Insurance Co. Ltd. jointly and severally liable with the owner and driver for compensation of Rs.12,98,500 plus interest. The insurer appealed, contending that the tractor driver did not possess a valid licence, which should exempt the insurer under the policy. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (AIROnline 2024 SC 864), which clarified that a licence for a Light Motor Vehicle also authorises operation of a transport vehicle without a separate endorsement. The High Court found no merit in the insurer’s argument, upheld the Tribunal’s finding, and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the respondents were allowed to withdraw the awarded amount with interest, and the related civil application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- The insurer’s liability when the driver of the offending vehicle lacks a valid driving licence.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation of licence classes in Rambha Devi applies to the present motor accident claim.
- Whether the insurer can be exempted from joint and several liability under the insurance policy.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act — s. 10(2)(d), 10(2)(e), 166
Subjects
- Motor accident claim
- Insurance liability
- Joint and several liability
- Driving licence validity
- Motor Vehicles Act
- Supreme Court interpretation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:11884
{1} FA 2142 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2142 OF 2013
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12839 OF 2015 IN FA/2142/2013
. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Senior Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office – I,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ….Appellant
Versus
1. Leelabai Gangadhar Narwade
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Dhorkin, Tq. Paithan,
Dist.Aurangabad.
2. Kadu @ Kaduba s/o Nana Narwade
Age: 75 yrs., Occu.: Nil,
R/o. As above.
3. Kalabai w/o Kaduba Narwade
Age: 70 yrs., Occu.: Household,
R/o. As above.
4. Raju s/o Gangadhar Narwade
Age: 26 yrs., Occu.: Household,
R/o. As above.
5. Vijay s/o Gangadhar Narwade
Age: 23 yrs., Occu.: Household,
R/o. As above.
6. Deepak s/o. Gangadhar Narwade
Age: 22 yrs., Occ.: Household,
R/o. As above.
7. Nandlal s/o Topa Rathod
Age: Major, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Dongaon, Post.Balanagar,
Tq.Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.
8. Dnyaneshwar s/o Hema Rathod
{2} FA 2142 OF 2013
Age: Major, Occu.: Driver,
R/o. Dongaon, Tekadi Tanda,
Tq. Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. …..Respondents
(Resp.No.1 to 6 are ori. claimants)
…..
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi
Advocate for Respondent nos.1, 3 to 6 : Ms.Vijayalaxmi Pathrikar h/f.
Mr.R.V.Gore
Advocate for Respondent nos.7 & 8 : Mr.V.R. Jain and Mr.T.S. Chavare
(absent)
…..
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 11 MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 18 MARCH, 2026
JUDGMENT :-
1. This is an appeal by Insurance Company taking exception to
the judgment and award dated 18-09-2012 passed by learned
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in MACP
No.866 of 2007, which was a death claim petition by legal heirs of
deceased Gangadhar.
As per record, respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. Kadu @ Kaduba
Nana Narwade and Kalabai Kadhuba Narwade have expired and their
legal heirs are already on record.
2. Mr.Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant briefed this Court
about background i.e. legal heirs of deceased filed above claim
petition on the premise that on 31-10-2007, while deceased was
{3} FA 2142 OF 2013
proceeding on his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.MH-20 AH-
3587, he was given dash by a Tractor bearing No.MH-20 AB-1691
causing him fatal injuries and death of Gangadhar. Therefore, his
legal heirs set up a claim for compensation by invoking Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Learned counsel pointed out that, in said claim petition,
present appellant was arraigned as one of the respondents and vide
above judgment and award, respondent nos.1 to 3 were made to pay
compensation jointly and severally to the tune of Rs.12,98,500/-
alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Learned counsel further
pointed out that, in the written statement and pleadings before the
learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company has taken a specific plea
that driver of the Tractor was not having valid and effective licence
and as such it amounted to breach of policy and therefore, Insurance
Company was not liable to pay compensation. That, even plea was
taken that there was no endorsement permitting driver of the Tractor
to attach trolley and therefore, in the light of above, it is his
submission that Insurance Company ought not to have been made
jointly and severally liable with owner and driver. Therefore, he
questions and criticizes finding of learned Tribunal that Insurance
{4} FA 2142 OF 2013
Company failed to prove that there was no valid and effective driving
licence.
4. While answering the above, learned counsel for
respondents/original claimants would submit that in view of recent
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, AIROnline 2024
SC 864, there is no error on the part of the learned Tribunal in
passing the impugned judgment and order and directing all the
respondents to jointly and severally pay the compensation.
5. The sole ground on which appeal is preferred is that of non-
consideration of pleadings of the Insurance Company in the learned
Tribunal about driver of Tractor not holding effective and valid
driving licence.
Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has placed on
record ruling in Rambha Devi (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has touched and dealt on various aspects of licences of Light
Motor Vehicles and Transport Vehicles with and without additional
authorization. In paragraph 131, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed as under :
{5} FA 2142 OF 2013
“131. A driver holding a licence 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.”
Therefore, in the light of above, there is no merit in the appeal
and hence, the same deserves to be dismissed for want of merits.
Accordingly, following order is passed :
ORDER
(I) First Appeal is dismissed.
(II) Respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw
the amount lying in this Court alongwith interest accrued
thereon. Accordingly, Civil Application No.12839 of 2015 is
disposed of.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
Checking your session…