Synopsis

The insurance company appealed against a Workmen’s Compensation award granted to the widow of a driver who died in a tempo accident. The insurer contested the income assessment (₹4,000 per month) and argued that the deceased did not possess a valid driving license (he held only a tractor license). The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) the income was proved by the claimant’s unchallenged testimony and the employer’s admission; (ii) a tractor license is a license to drive a “Light Motor Vehicle” under Section 2(21) of the MV Act, and since the tempo’s unladen weight was 1180 kg (below 7500 kg), the license was valid for driving the tempo, following the Constitution Bench decision in Bajaj Allianz v. Rambha Devi (2025).

Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Shah

Date of Judgment: 30th April 2026

Citation: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1667/2008 (2026:RJ-JD:19591)

Core Law: Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 30; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 2(21), 3, 10, 147, 149

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur

S.b. civil miscellaneous appeal no. 1667 of 2008

The new india assurance company limited (appellant) vs. Smt. jamna kanwar & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice sandeep shah

Date of pronouncement: 30th april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Workmen’s compensation act, 1923 – section 30 (appeal against order of Commissioner)

• Motor vehicles act, 1988 – section 2(21) (definition of “light motor vehicle”), section 3 (necessity of driving license), section 10 (classes of vehicles in license), sections 147, 149 (insurance liability)

• Indian evidence act, 1872 – principles of proof of income by admission and unchallenged testimony

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a driver holding a license specifically endorsed for driving a tractor can legall

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.