# Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sirajulhasan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 287
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-15
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2987 of 2007
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/oriental-insurance-co-ltd-v-sirajulhasan-ors-52779
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Mohd. Asim
Zulfiquar, Vijay Kant Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether whether the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal was legally justified in
fastening liability upon the insurer to indemnify
the compensation awarded, despite the insurer's
objection that the offending auto, being a
commercial transport vehicle, was allegedly
driven without a valid and effective driving
licence authorising the driver to operate a
transport vehicle, and consequently whether
such alleged deficiency amounted to a breach of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy
sufficient to absolve the insurer of liability under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 2(21), 163A, 164 - U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - r.
220-A - The facts, in brief are that on 03
July 1999, a minor aged about 15 years,
died in a motor accident involving Auto
No.
UP-73-A-0171,
which
was
being
driven
by
its
owner,
following
the
accident,
the
deceased's
parents
instituted Claim Petition before the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Kaushambi,
seeking
compensation
under
Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal, by
judgment and award dated 18.07.2007,
awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- for the
death of the minor and directed the
insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
to indemnify the owner of the vehicle -
Aggrieved thereby, the insurer preferred
the instant appeal u/s 173 of Act,
contending that the offending auto was a
commercial/transport vehicle and that the
owner-cum-driver did not possess a valid
and
effective
driving
licence
with
transport endorsement on the date of the
accident, amounting to breach of policy
conditions, whereas the claimants resisted
the appeal asserting that the auto had an
unladen weight of only 370 kg and thus
fell within the category of a Light Motor
Vehicle for which a separate transport
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
endorsement was not required - During
pendency of the insurer's appeal, the
claimants also filed a cross-objection,
albeit belatedly, seeking enhancement of
compensation on the ground that the
deceased was a young boy with a
promising future and that the Tribunal had
awarded
inadequate
compensation
without granting amounts under nonpecuniary heads such as loss of estate,
consortium and funeral expenses.

Held: It is evident that since the unladen
weight of the offending Auto was below
7500 KG, as such, it was a light motor
vehicle (LMV) as per s. 2(21) of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 and for driving it, only
license having an endorsement of LMV was
sufficient - The driver was not required to
possess the driving license for driving
transport vehicle in the light of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in M/S Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd
(infra), as such, the contention of learned
counsel for the appellant, that offending
driver was not having a valid and effective
driving license on the date of the accident, is
rejected - It is further evident that the
offending Auto was comprehensively insured
for the period 19.03.1999 till 18.03.2000
with the appellant, as such, the tribunal has
not erred in fastening the liability to pay
compensation on the insurer of the offending
Auto - Appeal lacks merit, dismissed - Cross
- objection allowed, award of the Tribunal
modified. [Paras 7, 9, 10] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95 (By 5
Judges); Ram Murti and others v. Punjab State
Electricity Board, 2023 ACJ 631; New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Halder
2024
SCC
OnLine
SC
4983;
National
Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sudha
Kumari and others, 2025:AHC:187154 -
referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal; Claim petition; Compensation; Insurer;
Indemnify;
Offending
vehicle;
Owner-cumdriver; Breach of terms and conditions of
insurance po

## Text

11 All. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sirajulhasan & Ors.
287
the date of filing of the claim petition till
it's actual payment, which is to be
indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle.

26. The appeal is allowed. The
award of the tribunal is modified to the
above extent.

27. If any amount has been paid by the
insurance company previously, then the
insurance company is entitled to adjust it
accordingly. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned tribunal
within two months.

28. The tribunal is directed to
deposit the total enhanced compensation
alongwith interest in a fixed deposit of a
bank, bearing monthly interest and the
claimant will be entitled to withdraw the
accrued monthly interest regularly for
sustaining his livelihood. The tribunal
will be at liberty to permit withdrawal
from
fixed
deposit
in
special
circumstances, keeping in view the
claimants' requirement.

29. The original record of the lower
court be sent back, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 287
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2987 of 2007

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sirajulhasan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Bhartendu Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Mohd. Asim
Zulfiquar, Vijay Kant Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether whether the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal was legally justified in
fastening liability upon the insurer to indemnify
the compensation awarded, despite the insurer's
objection that the offending auto, being a
commercial transport vehicle, was allegedly
driven without a valid and effective driving
licence authorising the driver to operate a
transport vehicle, and consequently whether
such alleged deficiency amounted to a breach of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy
sufficient to absolve the insurer of liability under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 2(21), 163A, 164 - U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - r.
220-A - The facts, in brief are that on 03
July 1999, a minor aged about 15 years,
died in a motor accident involving Auto
No.
UP-73-A-0171,
which
was
being
driven
by
its
owner,
following
the
accident,
the
deceased's
parents
instituted Claim Petition before the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Kaushambi,
seeking
compensation
under
Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal, by
judgment and award dated 18.07.2007,
awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- for the
death of the minor and directed the
insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
to indemnify the owner of the vehicle -
Aggrieved thereby, the insurer preferred
the instant appeal u/s 173 of Act,
contending that the offending auto was a
commercial/transport vehicle and that the
owner-cum-driver did not possess a valid
and
effective
driving
licence
with
transport endorsement on the date of the
accident, amounting to breach of policy
conditions, whereas the claimants resisted
the appeal asserting that the auto had an
unladen weight of only 370 kg and thus
fell within the category of a Light Motor
Vehicle for which a separate transport
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
endorsement was not required - During
pendency of the insurer's appeal, the
claimants also filed a cross-objection,
albeit belatedly, seeking enhancement of
compensation on the ground that the
deceased was a young boy with a
promising future and that the Tribunal had
awarded
inadequate
compensation
without granting amounts under nonpecuniary heads such as loss of estate,
consortium and funeral expenses.

Held: It is evident that since the unladen
weight of the offending Auto was below
7500 KG, as such, it was a light motor
vehicle (LMV) as per s. 2(21) of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 and for driving it, only
license having an endorsement of LMV was
sufficient - The driver was not required to
possess the driving license for driving
transport vehicle in the light of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in M/S Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd
(infra), as such, the contention of learned
counsel for the appellant, that offending
driver was not having a valid and effective
driving license on the date of the accident, is
rejected - It is further evident that the
offending Auto was comprehensively insured
for the period 19.03.1999 till 18.03.2000
with the appellant, as such, the tribunal has
not erred in fastening the liability to pay
compensation on the insurer of the offending
Auto - Appeal lacks merit, dismissed - Cross
- objection allowed, award of the Tribunal
modified. [Paras 7, 9, 10] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95 (By 5
Judges); Ram Murti and others v. Punjab State
Electricity Board, 2023 ACJ 631; New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Halder
2024
SCC
OnLine
SC
4983;
National
Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sudha
Kumari and others, 2025:AHC:187154 -
referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal; Claim petition; Compensation; Insurer;
Indemnify;
Offending
vehicle;
Owner-cumdriver; Breach of terms and conditions of
insurance policy; Driving licence; Transport
(commercial) vehicle; Light Motor Vehicle (LMV);
Gross vehicle weight; Unladen weight; Valid and
effective driving licence; Fastening of liability;
Written statement; Registration certificate (RC);
Verification report; Policy period; Dismissed;
Cross-objection; Delay condoned; Enhancement
of compensation; Minor; Notional income; Nonpecuniary heads; Loss of estate; Loss of
consortium;
Funeral
expenses;
Interest;
Beneficial provision; Modified; Statutory deposit;
Adjustment of amount; Direction to deposit.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 2987 of 2007

From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
18.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Kaushambi in
Claim Petition No. 741 of 1999

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellant:
Bhartendu Pathak

Advs. for the Respondent:
Abhishek
Kumar
Srivastava,
Mohd.
Asim
Zulfiquar, Vijay Kant Dwivedi

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

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the insurer of the
offending Auto No.UP-73-A-0171 against
the impugned judgment and award dated
18.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Kaushambi
in
Claim
Petition
No.741
of
1999
(Sirajulhasan
Vs.
Shivendra
Kumar
Vishwakarma and others), whereby for the
untimely death of Sebu Hasan in an
accident that occurred on 03.07.1999, a
compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- has been
awarded to claimants(father and mother)
11 All. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sirajulhasan & Ors.
289
which has been ordered to be indemnified
by the insurer of the offending Auto
No.UP-73-A-0171.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant
insurance company submitted that the
offending Auto No. UP-73-A-0171 was a
transport(commercial) vehicle and for it's
driving, a driving license having an
endorsement to drive transport vehicle was
required, which was not there in the driving
license of Shivendra Kumar Vishwakarma,
who was the owner-cum-driver of the
offending Auto No.UP-73-A-0171, as such,
the auto was being driven in violation of
the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy, as such, the insurance company was
not liable to indemnify the claimants
regarding the compensation awarded to
them.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-claimants submitted that since
the gross vehicle weight (GVW) of the
offending auto was below 7500 KG it falls
in the category of Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) and for driving it, no endorsement
of transport vehicle in the driving license
was required as per the law laid down by
the Apex Court in M/S Bajaj Alliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha
Devi & Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95 (By 5
Judges). He further submitted that the
driver was having a license to drive a light
motor vehicle(LMV) who was competent
to drive the offending auto, as such, no
breach of the insurance policy was
committed by the insured and in view of
this, the tribunal has rightly fastened the
liability to pay compensation on the insurer
of the offending Auto No.UP-73-A-0171.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the
parties, perused the impugned judgment
and the record of the lower court.

5. The owner-cum-driver of the
offending
Auto
No.UP-73-A-0171
Shivendra Kumar Vishwakarma has filed
his written statement before the tribunal in
which he has stated that his vehicle was
insured with The Oriental
Insurance
Company Limited from 19.03.1999 till
18.03.2000 and he was himself driving the
vehicle at the time of the alleged accident
and was having valid and effective driving
license, as such, if any compensation is
awarded against him, then the insurance
company will be liable to indemnify it. The
owner
has
filed
the
Registration
Certificate(RC) of the offending Auto
vehicle and his driving license, which
discloses that the unladen weight of the
offending vehicle was only 370 KG which
is below 7500 KG, as such, it would fall
within the definition of Light Motor
Vehicle (LMV) as per Section 2(21) of the
Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Further, the
driving license discloses that it was valid
for driving LMV (transport) and HGV (PE)
w.e.f. 28.04.1993 which was valid from
03.08.1996 to 02.08.1999, whereas the
accident occurred on 03.07.1999.

6. Further, the appellant insurance
company has filed a driving license
verification report from the Licensing
Authority, Motor Vehicles Department,
Kaushambi which discloses that the license
was only valid for driving LMV (pvt.
vehicle) from 19.02.1999 till 18.02.2019
and on the basis of this report, learned
counsel
for
the
insurance
company
submitted that the license was not valid for
driving the offending Auto No.UP-73-A0171 which was a transport(commercial)
vehicle, but was valid for only driving a
LMV(private vehicle). Learned counsel
submitted that for driving the Auto, a driver
must have a driving license for driving
transport vehicles, which was absent in this
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case, as such, the insured has committed
breach of the conditions of the insurance
policy, since the auto was insured as a
passenger carrying commercial vehicle.

7. It is evident that since the unladen
weight of the offending Auto was below
7500 KG, as such, it was a light motor
vehicle(LMV) as per section 2(21) of
the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and for
driving it, only license having an
endorsement of LMV was sufficient.
The driver was not required to possess
the driving license for driving transport
vehicle in the light of the law laid down
by the Apex Court in M/S Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd
(supra), as such, the contention of
learned counsel for the appellant, that
offending driver was not having a valid
and effective driving license on the date
of the accident, is rejected. It is further
evident that the offending Auto was
comprehensively insured for the period
19.03.1999 till 18.03.2000 with the
appellant, as such, the tribunal has not
erred in fastening the liability to pay
compensation on the insurer of the
offending Auto.

8. No other issue was pressed by
learned counsel for the appellant.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, this
appeal has no merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.

11. Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by the appellant
insurance company at the time of filing of
the appeal to the concerned Tribunal,
forthwith.

Order on Cross Objection No.12 of
2021

1. The office report discloses that there
is a delay of 1008 days in filing the crossobjection. However, since the appeal of the
Insurance Company, FAFO No. 2987 of
2007, is pending, the delay in filing the
cross-objection is condoned.

2. The instant cross-objection has been
filed for enhancement of compensation by
the claimants in FAFO No.2987 of 2007.

3. Learned counsel for the claimantscross objectors submits that the deceased
Sebu Hasan was a minor boy of about 15
years age, who had a bright and promising
future, but the Tribunal has only awarded a
compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, which is
inadequate.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the
claimants
are
entitled
to
enhanced
compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as well as
compensation towards loss of estate,
consortium, funeral expenses, and interest
on compensation. However, the Tribunal
has not awarded any compensation under
the
non-pecuniary
heads,
which
is
erroneous.

5. Learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company has submitted that
since the deceased was only a minor, who
was not earning, as such, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded compensation by assessing
his income on notional basis, which
warrants no enhancement from this Court
in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel further submitted
that the claimants are also not entitled to
compensation under non pecuniary heads
since the claim petition was filed under
11 All. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sirajulhasan & Ors.
291
section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act,1988 and the Tribunal has also not
committed any illegality in not awarding
interest on the compensation awarded to
the claimants.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for
both the sides and perused the record of the
lower court.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Ram
Murti and others v. Punjab State
Electricity Board, 2023 ACJ 631 has held
that under Section 164 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
in death cases. It was further held that since
Section 164 of the Act is a beneficial
provision enacted by Parliament, as such,
even if the accident occurred prior to the
enforcement of the provision in the year
2019, even then the claimants are entitled
to enhanced amount of compensation @
Rs.5,00,000/-. In this case, the accident
occurred prior to the year 1994.

9. Further, the Apex Court in the case
of New India Assurance Company
Limited vs. Urmila Halder 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 4983 in a claim petition filed
under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, regarding an accident that
occurred on 11.12.2004, has upheld the
award of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- by
the High Court in a death case and has held
that Section 163-A was amended with
effect from 22.05.2018, and since it is a
beneficial legislation, the claimants are
entitled to receive enhanced compensation,
even in respect of accident that occurred
prior to that date.

10. This Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt.
Sudha
Kumari
and
others,
2025:AHC:187154 while analysing award
of non-pecuniary damages in claim cases
filed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, has held that keeping in
view Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle
Rules,1998, as amended w.e.f. 26.9.2011,
there is no differentiation insofar as the
payment of non pecuniary damages is
concerned in claim cases filed under
Section 166 or 163-A or 164 of the Motor
Vehicles Act,1988. There is no specific bar
that non pecuniary damages are not to be
awarded in claim cases filed under Section
163-A or 164 of the Motor Vehicles
Act,1988. It was further held that:-

"15. It is apparent that as per
Rule 220-A(4) of the above Rules, in all
cases, non pecuniary damages shall also be
payable in the compensation, as follows-

(i) Compensation for loss of
estate: Rs. 5000 to Rs. 10,000.

(ii) Compensation for loss of
consortium: Rs. 5000 to 10,000.

(iii) Compensation for loss of
love and affection: Rs. 5000 to Rs. 15,000.

(iv) Funeral expenses, costs of
transportation of body; Rs. 5000 or actual
expenses whichever is less.

(v) Medical expenses : actual
expenses proved to the satisfaction of the
Claims Tribunal.

17. The Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.(2018)
18 SCC 130 has awarded Rs.40,000/- each
towards
loss
of
spousal
consortium,
parental consortium and filial consortium,
following the Constitutional Bench decision
of the Apex Court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC
680."

11. In view of the above authoritative
pronouncement of the Apex Court, in this
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case also, in which the accident occurred
on 03.07.1999, the claimants are entitled to
get enhanced compensation in accordance
with Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1998 of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith
interest under Rule 220-A of the U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 at the rate of
7% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition, till its actual payment.

12. The claimants are also entitled to
get Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.10,000/-
each
towards
loss
of
consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral
expenses, a total of Rs.35,000/- towards
non pecuniary compensation.

13. In this way, the claimants are
entitled
to
total
compensation
of
Rs.5,35,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till it's actual payment, which is to
be indemnified by the insurer of the
offending offending Auto No.UP-73-A0171.

14. The cross objection is allowed.
The award of the Tribunal is modified to
the above extent.

15. If any amount has been paid by the
insurance company previously, then the
insurance company is entitled to adjust it
accordingly. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned tribunal
within two months. The tribunal will be at
liberty
to
proportionally
award
the
enhanced amount of compensation to the
claimants keeping in view their age and
dependency.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 292
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

First Appeal No. 493 of 2025

Rajdhari & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Sadhna Devi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vinod Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
Pawan Kumar Dubey, Rajesh Kumar,
Saurabh Kumar Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Family Court was
justified in declaring the respondent to be the
legally wedded wife and widow of the deceased
soldier, on the basis of the evidence on record,
and whether such declaration suffers from any
error
of
law,
jurisdiction,
or
perversity
warranting appellate interference.

Headnotes
Family Courts Act, 1984 - s.4 - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 11 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - O. 14 R. 3, O.7 R. 11, O.
6 R. 17 - The appellants, residents of
Gujarat, being the parents of a deceased
Army personnel who died in the line of
duty on 14 January 2008, challenged the
judgment of the Family Court declaring
the respondent as the legally wedded wife
and widow of the deceased, contending
that no valid marriage had taken place
and
that
only
an
engagement
was
solemnised on 12 May 2007, with the
marriage allegedly fixed for a later date -
The respondent (wife) asserted that the
marriage was duly solemnised on 12 May
2007 at her parental home and relied
upon documentary and oral evidence to
substantiate her marital status - Prior
proceedings before the Gujarat High Court
concerning service benefits and honours
had yielded conflicting outcomes, while
the respondent subsequently instituted