# Lal Ji Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 377
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-27
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 7 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lal-ji-yadav-v-national-insurance-co-ltd-anr-54018
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

1 All. Lal Ji Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
377
Supreme Court herein held that conviction cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or on
statements recorded during investigation. In that case, the trial court had acquitted the accused in a
murder case because most prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the alleged eyewitness failed to
identify the accused. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused
mainly by relying on the testimony of the Investigating Officer, who stated that witnesses had
supported the prosecution case during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court
set aside the High Court judgment and restored the acquittal, holding that statements under Section
161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and cannot be used to convict unless the witness affirms
them in court.

17. Therefore, the corroboration drawn from the testimony of the Investigating Officer is not
permissible in law. Reliance placed by the learned trial court on such inadmissible material makes
the finding legally unsustainable. In view of the above settled legal position, the approach adopted
by the learned trial court in convicting the appellants solely on the basis of partial testimony of a
hostile witness, without lawful corroboration and without confronting the witness with his previous
statement, is clearly erroneous. The findings recorded by the learned trial court are therefore
perverse, contrary to law, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and the impugned judgment
warrants interference by this Court.

18. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha, in S.S.T. No. 462 of 2020 (State
vs. Vishal Tyagi and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2020, under Sections 504, 506
Part-I IPC and Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside, and this criminal appeal is
allowed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 377
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 7 of 2026

Lal Ji Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in the absence of a transport endorsement and permit, the owner of the offending
vehicle can be fastened with liability to pay compensation, or whether the insurer remains liable, when the
vehicle falls within the category of a light motor vehicle (LMV) and the driver possessed a valid LMV (Private)
driving licence.

Headnotes
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 2(21), 66, 173 - UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 - R. 220-A - Liability
of Insurer - Compensation - The appellant - owner preferred an appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, assailing the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kaushambi, whereby compensation of ₹3,89,000/- along with interest was awarded to the
claimants on account of death of deceased in a road accident dated 09.04.2009, and though the
insurer was directed to initially satisfy the award, a right of recovery was granted against the
owner - It was the contention of the appellant that the offending vehicle, being a light motor
vehicle (LMV) with a laden weight of 975 kg i.e. gross vehicle weight was below 3000 kg, neither
required a permit u/s 66 of Act nor necessitated a transport endorsement on the driver's licence,
as the driver possessed a valid LMV (Private) licence - It was further urged that the Tribunal
erred in holding otherwise - The insurer, while opposing, fairly conceded the legal position
regarding permit and licence - Additionally, a cross-objection was filed by claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation on the grounds of non-grant of future prospects, excessive
deduction towards personal expenses, inadequate award under non-pecuniary heads, and lower
rate of interest with a delay of 1625 days. (E-11)
Held: Upon perusal of s. 66(3)(i) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is evident that no permit is required where
the gross vehicle weight of a goods vehicle does not exceed 3000 kg - The registration certificate of offending
vehicle, duly placed on record and undisputed by insurer, establishes that its laden weight was 975 kg and
vehicle was goods vehicle - Consequently, no permit was required for its operation, and the Tribunal erred in
holding otherwise - It is evident that the offending vehicle, having a laden weight below 7,500 kg, qualified as
a light motor vehicle u/s 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and could be lawfully driven with an endorsement
of LMV (Private) licence without any transport endorsement - The driver admittedly possessed a valid LMV
licence for the relevant period, thus, the Tribunal erred in holding otherwise and in requiring a permit for
plying the offending vehicle - The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,63,100/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the date of actual payment of
compensation, which is to be indemnified by the insurer of offending vehicle - The owner of offending vehicle
is not required to pay any compensation either to claimants or Insurance Company - Accordingly, the appeal
 filed by owner and cross-objection filed by claimants are allowed. [Paras 7, 8, 18, 20]

Case Law Cited
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi and others (2025) 3 SCC 95; Sushil Kumar &
Another v. M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another, FAFO No. 2581 of 2011, decided on 26.04.2017 -
referred to

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma General Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130; Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti
Jadhav (Dead) through LRS and Others (2023) 13 SCC 334 - followed

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998

List of Keywords
First Appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Compensation; Indemnify;
Right of recovery; Offending vehicle; Valid and effective driving licence; LMV (Light Motor Vehicle), LMV
(Private) vehicle; Transport vehicle; Commercial Vehicle; Endorsement; Laden weight; Gross vehicle weight;
Permit u/s 66, Registration certificate; Goods vehicle; Public place; Liability to pay compensation; Crossobjection; Delay condonation; Enhanced compensation; Future prospects; Deduction towards personal
expenses; Dependency of claimants; Multiplier; Loss of consortium; Loss of estate; Funeral expenses; Nonpecuniary heads; Rate of interest; Date of filing of claim petition; Actual payment; Redetermination of
compensation; Apportionment of compensation; Statutory deposit; Refund with accrued interest.
1 All. Lal Ji Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
379
Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From Order No. - 7 of 2026

From the Judgment and Award dated 21.07.2009, subsequently corrected on 29.07.2009, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Kaushambi in M.A.C.P. No.70 of 2006.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Amit Kuma Sinha, Amit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava Sinha

Advs. for the Respondent:
Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, Radhey Shyam

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. Ms. Deepali Srivastava Sinha, learned counsel for the owner appellant, learned counsel for
the respondent Insurance Company and Sri Abhishek Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Mohd.
Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents are present.

2. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by
the owner of the offending three wheeler No.UP-70-AT-3092 against the impugned judgment and
award dated 21.07.2009, subsequently corrected on 29.07.2009, passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Kaushambi in M.A.C.P. No.70 of 2006 (Smt. Naghama Begam vs.
Lal Ji Yadav and another) whereby, for the untimely death of Khaliq Ahmad @ Achchhe in a road
accident that occurred on 09.04.2009, a compensation of Rs.3,89,000/- alongwith interest @ 6%
per annum has been awarded to the claimant, which was ordered to be indemnified initially by the
insurer of the offending vehicle but later on a right of recovery was given to it from the owner of
the offending vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the offending vehicle was not having
a valid permit and the offending driver had a valid and effective driving license to drive
LMV(Private) on the date of the accident, hence, the liability to pay compensation was imposed on
the owner of the tempo, which is erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that since the laden weight
of the offending vehicle was only 975 kg, which was below 3000 kg, as such, no permit was
required under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was further submitted that the
offending driver Bablu Yadav possessed a driving license, which was valid and effective for
driving LMV(Private) vehicle but the Tribunal has erred in concluding that the driving license
having an endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was required. Learned counsel submitted that
since the laden weight of the vehicle was below 3000 kg., as such, driver having a valid
LMV(Private) license could have legally driven the offending vehicle for which no endorsement
for driving transport vehicle was required, but this was not considered by the Tribunal. Learned
counsel submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rambha Devi and others (2025) 3 SCC 95, the offending driver
was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. With these submissions, it was
prayed that the appeal be allowed and the liability to pay compensation be imposed on the insurer
of the offending vehicle.
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has very fairly conceded
that since the weight of the offending goods vehicle was below 3000 kg., as per Section 66 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a permit was not required for plying it. He further conceded that since
the driver was having a license to drive LMV(Private) vehicle, as such, an endorsement for driving
transport vehicle was not required at the time of the accident, as held by the Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited (supra).

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and
documents submitted with the appeal.

6. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General
Insurance Company Limited (supra), after analyzing whether a holder of LMV license can drive
all the vehicles below the weight of 7,500 kg, held as under:-

"181.1. 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 special eligibility
requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles
carrying hazardous goods.

181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific
requirement to drive a "transport vehicle", does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in
Section 2(21) of the MV Act.

181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules
generally for driving ?transport vehicles? would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles
with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kg i.e. "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger
vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger vehicle".

181.4. The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) [Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663] is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this
judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain
provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment."

7. It is apparent from the perusal of Section 66 (3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that a
permit is not required where the gross vehicle weight of a goods vehicle does not exceed 3000 kg.
The appellant has annexed the copy of the registration certificate of the offending vehicle, which
has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, which discloses
that the laden weight of the offending vehicle was only 975 kg and further the vehicle was, a goods
vehicle. In view of the fact that the laden weight of the vehicle was below 3000 kg., a permit was
not required for plying it, but unfortunately, the Tribunal has held otherwise. Accordingly, it is held
that no permit was required for plying the offending tempo No.UP-70AT-3092 in public place.

8. It is further evident that since laden weight of the offending auto was below 7,500 kg, and it
was a light motor vehicle (LMV), as per Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence, for
driving it, only license having an endorsement of LMV(Private) was sufficient. The driver was not
1 All. Lal Ji Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
381
required to possess the driving license for driving transport vehicle or commercial vehicle, in the
light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General
Insurance Company Limited (supra). It is not disputed that the offending driver Bablu Yadav was
possessing a driving license, which was valid for driving LMV private vehicle from 17.01.2004 till
16.01.2024. In view of this, the Tribunal has certainly erred in concluding that the offending driver
was not having a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident and further permit
was required for plying the offending vehicle. Accordingly, this appeal has merit and deserves to be
allowed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Order on Cross Objection No. 52 of 2021:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the claimants-cross objector and learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company.

2. As per office report, there is a delay of 1625 days in filing the instant cross objection.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants-cross objector submitted that since the claimants were
illiterate and were not aware that for enhancement of compensation, a cross objection was required
to be filed, as such, the cross objection could not be filed within time.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that since a cross appeal of the owner is pending, as
such, the delay in filing the cross-objection, be condoned.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that if this
Court is of the opinion that the delay in filing the cross objection is liable to be condoned, then this
Court may not award interest on the enhanced compensation, if any, awarded by this Court, for the
period of delay.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.

7. Since, the cross appeal of the owner was pending, which has been decided only today, as
such, the delay in filing the cross objection is liable to be condoned and is accordingly, condoned
but certainly the claimants are not entitled for interest on the period of delay.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants-cross objector submitted that the deceased Khaliq Ahmad
@ Achchhe was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident, who was supporting his family of
10 persons, including himself, who was in the occupation of selling Chicken and eggs, who was
earning Rs.6,000/- per month but still the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards the
future prospects of the deceased, whereas the claimants are entitled to get it @50%, as per Rule
220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998. It was further submitted that since there were nine
dependents of the deceased, only 1/5th amount was required to be deducted towards the personal
expenses of the deceased but the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount, which requires reduction. It
is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation towards non-
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pecuniary heads and has also awarded less interest on compensation @ 6% per annum whereas, as
per Rule 220-A of the above Rules, interest @ at-least 7% per annum should have been awarded to
the claimants. With these submissions, it was prayed that the cross-objection preferred by the
claimants be allowed and enhanced compensation be paid to them.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the
Tribunal has awarded right amount of compensation to the claimants, which does not warrant any
enhancement from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It was further submitted that
the claimants should not be awarded any interest on the enhanced amount of compensation
awarded by this Court, since, cross-objection was filed belatedly.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and
documents submitted with the appeal.

11. Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 w.e.f. 26.09.2011, mandates that when
the deceased was aged below 40 years on the date of accident, the claimants are also entitled to
compensation on future prospects @50% of his income.

12. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680 has awarded loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is to be enhanced at the rate of
10% after every three years.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, has awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards
spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium.

14. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs Laxman Maruti
Jadhav (Dead) through LRS and Others (2023) 13 SCC 334, held as under:-

32. In the present case, MACT had granted a meagre amount of Rs 5000 towards loss of
consortium. However, the High Court granted a total amount of Rs 70,000 as consolidated amount
under all conventional heads, which included loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses. In Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , the Constitution Bench of this Court had
provided that all dependents should be separately awarded towards loss of consortium and had
actually awarded Rs 40,000 to each of the dependents. Considering the same, an amount of Rs
40,000 each is awarded to each of the four dependents towards loss of consortium.

(emphasis supplied)

15. A Division Bench of this Court in FAFO No.2581 of 2011, Sushil Kumar & Another vs.
M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another, decided on 26.04.2017 has held that even if the
accident occurred prior to 26.09.2011, the claimants are entitled to compensation on future
1 All. Lal Ji Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
383
prospects as per amended Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, since it is a beneficial
legislation.

16. As per decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) read with Rule 220A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants were entitled to get compensation towards
future prospects of the deceased @ 50% of his income, but the Tribunal has not awarded any
amount towards it, which is erroneous. It is further evident that since there are nine dependents of
the deceased, which included his wife, six minor children and parents, only a deduction of 1/5th
was required to be made towards the personal expenses of the deceased, keeping in view the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) but the Tribunal has deducted
1/3rd amount, which requires reduction. It is further apparent that the claimants are entitled to
enhanced amount of compensation under non-pecuniary heads, keeping in view the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra) and
Rahul Ganpatrao Sable (supra). It is further evident that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6%
per annum on the compensation whereas, as per Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules,
1998, the claimants were entitled to get it @ 7% per annum.

17. In view of the above legal position, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation, which is redetermined as under:-

S.No.

Compensation Heads

Amount Awarded
in Rs.
In Accordance with.

1.
Monthly income of deceased

3,000/-

As determined by tribunal

2.
Annual Income of deceased

3,000X12=36,000/-

As determined by tribunal

3.
Less 1/5 deduction towards self expenses (since
there were nine dependents)

7,200/-

Pranay Sethi(supra)

4.
Net annual income on which claimants were
dependent

28,800/-

Pranay Sethi (supra)

5.
Add future prospects @50% since deceased was
aged about 35 years

14,400/-

Rule 220-A of UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998

6.
Total annual dependency of claimants on deceased

43,200/-
Rule 220-A of UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998

7.
Multiplier applied since age of deceased was about
35 years

16
Pranay Sethi(supra)

8.
Total loss of dependency to the claimants

43,200
x
16
=6,91,200/-

Pranay Sethi(supra)

9.
Loss of consortium @Rs.40,000/-each, increased by
10% after every 3 years (9 claimants)

48,400X9=4,35,60
0/-

Pranay
Sethi(supra),
Magma
General
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Rahul
Ganpatrao Sable (supra)

10.
Loss of estate @ Rs.15,000/- increased by 10%
after every 3 years.

18,150/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)

11.
Funeral Expenses @ Rs.15,000/- increased by 10%
after every 3 years.

18,150/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12.
Total compensation

11,63,100/-

18. In this way, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,63,100/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the date of actual payment
of compensation, which is to be indemnified by the insurer of offending three wheeler No.UP-70AT-3092. The owner of the above offending vehicle is not required to pay any compensation either
to the claimants or the Insurance Company.

19. Since the cross-objection was filed with delay of 1625 days, the claimants are not entitled
to any interest on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by this Court for the period of
delay i.e. from 13.10.2016 to 25.03.2021.

20. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the owner i.e. F.A.F.O. No.7 of 2026 and crossobjection preferred by the claimants are allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the
tribunal dated 21.07.2009 and 29.07.2009 is modified to the above extent.

21. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation
alongwith interest within a period of two months in the concerned tribunal. The tribunal is at liberty
to apportion the enhanced amount of compensation proportionately among the claimants, keeping
in view their age and dependency.

22. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the owner at the time of
filing of the appeal to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. The Tribunal is directed to refund this
amount along with accrued interest to the owner of the offending vehicle, without any delay.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 384
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 892 of 2015

Sangam Lal ...Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the injuries
resulting in permanent disability suffered by the claimant was just, fair, and in accordance with settled
principles governing assessment of functional disability, loss of earning capacity, future prospects, application
of multiplier, and award under non-pecuniary heads and whether the Tribunal erred either in assessing the
percentage of functional disability and income or in declining enhancement, thereby warranting interference in
appellate jurisdiction by High Court.