JUDGMENT RELTED TO DRIVING LICENSE AND MV ACT PART 5

 

JUDGMENT RELTED TO DRIVING LICENSE AND MV ACT PART 5

 

Driver of Transport Corporation appointed only after due process – was also given training worked

For about 6 years after the accident, it is found that he was holding fake licence whether under this circumstances, Corporation can held liable on the ground that it has failed it's duty to verify the

proper fact before employing such driver. Held; No.

2013 ACJ 2440 (SC)Pepsu Road Transport Corp.

v/s N.I.Com.

Whether in a claim petition preferred u/s 163A or an application u/s 140, insurer is allowed to raise

dispute qua Section 149(2) of the Act. Held ; Yes.

2014 ACJ 1 (Ker)relied

on 2010 ACJ 1896

(Chahan Harising Padamsing)

U/s 140 – 2014 ACJ 71 (J&K)

Learner's Licence Driver of the car was having

Learner's Licence at the time of accident he

Then obtained permanent licence Learner's

Licence gets validity from the date he got Learner's Licence Even no mentioning of Sign 'L' does not make any difference. 2013ACJ 1041 –

2022 ACJ 124 (Bom) in this case accident occurred 45 minutes prior to the time of accident – IC held not liable.

Accident occurred when rider of the motor cycle who was having only learner's licence and there was no one sitting as pillion rider to guide him, as

provided under Rule 3(b) of the Central M V Rules,

1988. Whether IC can't be exonerated in such

situation? Held Yes. But order of Pay and Recover

is passed.

2018 ACJ 577 (Mad)

Accident occurred when rider of the motor cycle who was having only learner's licence and there a pillion rider who sustained injuries whether a claim

petition by such injured is maintainable? Held ; Yes.

As per Rule 24(3) of the Central M V Rules, 1989,

motorcyclist is exempted from the requirement of

instructor to accompany him. 2020 ACJ 1 (Karn)

Sitting capacity is only one – IC took premium to

covering risk of two labourers death of labourer –

IC took defence that sitting capacity is only one

therefore, risk of labourer is not covered – whether such stand of the IC is sustainable? Held ; No.

2018 ACJ 2254 (Mad)

Fake DL IC adduced no evidence to prove that

insured committed willful default of IP whether

IC can seek to avoid its liability. Held ; No.

Swaran Singh is followed.

2012 ACJ 2797.

IC took defense that driver was not holding the valid licence to drive IC did not examine any witness in this regard mere reliance on the exhibited driving licence marking of exhibit does not dispense with the proof of document IC held liable

AIR 1971 SC 1865, 2011 ACJ 1606 ((P&H)

Driver was holding licence to ply ‘light motor

vehicle’drove ‘pick up jeep’ which is transport

vehicle whether IC is liable. Held ; no.

e.f 29.03.2001, no person can said to hold an effective driving licence to drive transport vehicle if he only holds a licence entitling him to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ when there is no endorsement on driving licence to drive transport vehicle, IC is not liable

2008 ACJ 721 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2115 (HP), 2014 ACJ

1128. But see 2014 ACJ 1117Tractorwhether

Non transport vehicle or not – which kind of

licence is required.

Driving licence liability of IC‘ light motor vehicle’ driver had licence to ply auto rickshaw and was driving auto rickshaw delivery van, which caused

Accident Tribunal held that driver was not holding

valid licence whether sustainable. Held ; no. Further held that use of vehicle for carriage of goods does not take the auto rickshaw outside the scope and definition of ‘light motor vehicle’, which includes a transport vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed permissible limit of 7500kg lastly held that driver was holding valid licence to drive and IC is liable

2011 ACJ 1592 (ORI), 2014 ACJ 1037, 2014 ACJ

2148, 2014 ACJ 2259 (All), 2014 ACJ 2471 (Guj),

2014 ACJ 2703 (P&H), 2016 ACJ 1042 (AP)

31U/

S 149(2), (4) and ( 5) of MV Act terms of IP – IC

has right to contest on all grounds including

negligence and quantum whether valid –held;no IC can challenge the award only on the points available to it u/s 149 of the Act

2011 ACJ 2253 (P&H)

IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that

driver was not holding valid licence if the licence

of the driver had lapsed that itself is not a proof

that he was disqualified from driving or he was

debarred from driving said vehicle IC held liable.SC

judgment followed.

2012 ACJ 2025 (KAN)

DL – IC failed to prove that driver not having valid

Licence IC held liable to pay.

2012 AAC 3206.