Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Harihar, which had fastened liability on the insured (owner) on the ground that the driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence for a transport vehicle. The claimant, a minor girl aged about seven years, suffered amputation of her left leg below the knee in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,24,315/- with 6% interest, but held the owner liable because the driver's licence was for a non-transport vehicle. The owner contended that the driver held a valid driving licence for a light motor vehicle (non-transport) which was valid up to 07.11.2029, and that such licence also covered transport vehicles of the same class under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 10 and noted that a licence for a non-transport vehicle of a particular class also authorizes the holder to drive a transport vehicle of that class, provided the licence is endorsed for transport. The court found that the driver's licence was valid for the class of vehicle involved. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's finding on liability, and directed the insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured if there was any breach of policy conditions.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Driving Licence - Transport vs Non-Transport Vehicle - Section 10 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The issue was whether a driver holding a licence for a non-transport vehicle (LMV) can drive a transport vehicle of the same class. The court held that under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a licence for a non-transport vehicle of a particular class also authorizes the holder to drive a transport vehicle of that class, provided the licence is endorsed for transport. The insurer cannot avoid liability if the driver had a valid licence for the class of vehicle. (Paras 4-6) B) Motor Accident Claims - Liability of Insurer - Breach of Policy Condition - Section 149 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal had fastened liability on the insured on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence for a transport vehicle. The High Court reversed this finding, holding that the driver's licence for a non-transport vehicle (LMV) was valid and covered the transport vehicle in question. The insurer was directed to pay the compensation and recover from the insured if there was any breach. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the driver holding a driving licence for a non-transport vehicle can drive a transport vehicle of the same class, and whether the insurer can avoid liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid licence for a transport vehicle.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the insured is set aside. The insurer is directed to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured if there is any breach of policy conditions.
Law Points
- Driving licence for non-transport vehicle covers transport vehicle of same class
- Insurer cannot avoid liability if driver has valid licence for non-transport vehicle
- Section 10 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 interpretation
