LMV License Valid For Transport Vehicles Under 7500 KG: Himachal Pradesh HC

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has reaffirmed the legal principle that a driving license for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) inherently authorizes the holder to operate a transport vehicle of the same weight class, effectively barring insurance companies from repudiating claims based on the lack of a specific transport endorsement. This decision fortifies the rights of vehicle owners and drivers against technical exoneration pleas by insurers, aligning state jurisprudence with recent Constitution Bench precedents.

Justice Sushil Kukreja heard the appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, which challenged a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) award. The primary legal contention revolved around whether a driver holding an LMV license requires a specific endorsement to drive a 'Bolero Camper' classified as a transport vehicle.

Court Observations and Directions

The Court noted that the vehicle involved, a Bolero Camper, had an unladen weight of 1705 kg, placing it well within the LMV category. The appellant's argument that the driver lacked a 'commercial' endorsement was found to be legally untenable.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg. is permitted to operate a 'transport vehicle' without needing additional authorisation 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 Court has following directions:

"Therefore, in view of my aforesaid discussion, no interference is required in the impugned award dated 01.04.2014, passed by the learned Tribunal below. Consequently, the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

Background

The dispute originated from an accident on October 17, 2007, involving a Bolero Camper (HP-17B-0137). The claimant, Vinod, was traveling with his vegetables when the vehicle, driven by Tikkam Singh, fell into a gorge due to high speed. The claimant sustained permanent disability and sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Insurance Company contested the claim, primarily arguing that the driver only possessed an LMV-NT (Non-Transport) license, whereas the Bolero Camper was a 'Transport Vehicle'. The MACT Nahan had partly allowed the petition, awarding Rs. 30,322 with interest, and directed the insurer to pay. The insurer appealed this, seeking exoneration. The High Court, relying on Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi and others ( "(2025) 3 SCC 95": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 706) which upheld the principles of Mukund Dewangan, found the driver's license valid and dismissed the insurer's appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: FAO No.235 of 2014
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:40115
Case Title: Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Vinod and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 8039