Insurance Company Liable as Tempo Qualified as LMV and Driver Held Valid Licence | HC

Case Details: New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Jamuna Kanwar [2026] 186 taxmann.com 81 (HC-Rajasthan)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sandeep Shah, J.
• Jagdish Vyas & Shyam Charan for the Appellant.
• Sanjeev Beniwal for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Claimant-widow filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, stating that her husband was employed as a driver by the employer-owner to drive a tempo, met with an accident, and died of injuries.

The Employer admitted an employer-employee relationship, death in an accident, and a salary of Rs. 4,000 per month, and stated the vehicle was duly insured, shifting liability to the insurer. The appellant-insurance company denied employment and accident, disputed stated income as exaggerated, and objected that the deceased did not hold a valid driving licence for the vehicle, disclaiming liability for breach of policy conditions.

The Commissioner framed issues on relationship, quantum, and liability, allowed the claim, and awarded compensation, directing payment within 60 days, failing which interest at 12% per annum would apply.

It was noted that since the unladen weight of the tempo in question was only 1180 kilograms, which was far below the statutory limit of 7500 kilograms prescribed for a vehicle to fall within the category of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, said tempo clearly qualified as a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’.

Further, it was noted that since the deceased’s license specifically mentioned entitlement to drive a tractor, such a license must be treated as a license to drive a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the claimant consistently stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. This assertion was reiterated in her examination-in-chief, and the employer himself appeared in the witness box and categorically admitted that he was paying Rs. 4,000 per month to the deceased.

Further, the High Court held that the Insurance Company had failed to prove anything contrary to the claimant’s stand, and, accordingly, the Commissioner had rightly assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs. 4,000 per month. Thus, the objection raised by the Insurance Company in this regard was to be rejected.

List of Cases Reviewed

• New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya 2006 taxmann.com 2369 (SC)/AIR 2006 SC 1926 (para 15) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya 2006 taxmann.com 2369 (SC) (para 5)
• Oriental Insurance Co. v. Zahirulnisha (2008) 12 SCC 385 (para 7)
• Beli Ram v. Rajendra Kumar [2020] 9 taxmann.com 1301 (SC) (para 7)
• Oriental Insurance Co. v. Mastana (2006) 2 SCC 261 (para 8)
• New India Insurance Co. v. Smt. Pappu Devi [S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1142 of 2016, dated 12-8-2024] (para 9)
• Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2025) 3 SCC 95 (para 12)
• Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Ins.Co. Ltd (2016) 4 SCC 298 (para 24)
• HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company v. Master Sonu [S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 4635 of 2015] (para 24).