UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusLEELABAI GANGADHAR NARWADE AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:11883


                                                   {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