LMV License Valid For Transport Vehicles Under 7500kg: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the settled legal principle that insurance companies cannot escape liability for compensation merely because a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license was operating a transport vehicle of the same class. This ruling effectively shields vehicle owners from being unfairly burdened with compensation payouts in accident claims where the offending vehicle falls within the prescribed weight limits of an LMV license.

Justice B. P. Sharma, presiding over the miscellaneous appeal, addressed the challenge brought by a driver-cum-owner against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) order. The tribunal had previously exonerated the insurer and fastened the entire liability on the owner, a decision the High Court has now reversed by relying on binding precedents from the Supreme Court of India.

Court's Rationale on License Endorsements

The primary question before the Court was whether the insurance company could be exonerated on the ground that the driver of the offending auto-rickshaw lacked a separate endorsement for transport vehicles. The Court noted that the driver possessed a valid LMV license and the vehicle in question was an auto-rickshaw.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it has been held that a person holding a valid driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle is competent to drive a transport vehicle falling within the category of Light Motor Vehicle, having gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kg, and no separate endorsement is required on the driving licence. The said view has also been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and Others ( "2024 INSC 840": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 825)."

Directions Issued to the Insurance Company

The Court has the following directions:

"The insurance company is held liable to indemnify the appellant and satisfy the award of compensation. Respondent No.2/insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.94,600/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, before the learned Tribunal, if not already deposited."

Background

The dispute originated from an accident on June 25, 2010, when an auto-rickshaw overturned near B.T.I. School, Barela, resulting in grievous injuries to a passenger. The passenger filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Nineteenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, awarded Rs. 94,600/- but held the owner/driver solely liable, exonerating the insurance company due to the lack of a transport endorsement on the LMV license.

The appellant challenged this before the High Court, citing the landmark ruling in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.. The Insurance Company's counsel admitted that the case was covered by the Supreme Court's decision. Consequently, the High Court set aside the tribunal's findings regarding the exoneration of the insurer and directed the company to satisfy the award.

Case Details:
Case No.: MISC. APPEAL No. 503 of 2012
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:89405
Case Title: SANJAY @ SUNIL DUBEY Versus RAMLAL SHRIPAL AND ANR
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri V.C. Rai - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Bhanu Prakash Vishwakarma - Advocate for respondent No. 2

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 36552