Supreme Court of India
SANT LAL versus RAJESH & ORS. ETC. on 3 July 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 823
A
SANT LAL
v.
RAJESH & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8395-8396of2017)
B
JULY03,2017
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss.3, 10(2), 2(21) Transport . vehicle - Whether a driver who is having a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' (LMV) and is driving 'transport vehicle' of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle - Driver having licence to drive LMV can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement - In the instant case, tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle - Therefore, there was no breach of conditions of the policy.
c
D
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate E endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle and answered in reference in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011). It was held that driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle · can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached F with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy •. [Paras 3, 4 and 5] [824-D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8395-8396 of2017.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2013 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 347 & 348 of 2011.
Vineet Bhagat, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, K. G. Bhagat, M. S. Bakshi, Ms. Neelam Saini, Advs. for the Appellants.
H
A Bharat Bhushan, Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Ms. Radhika Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals have been preferred by the owner, aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, "the MACT"). The driver was driving a tractor which was attached to the trolley carrying goods. The MACT held that the same becomes transport vehicle though the driver was having licence to drive motor cycle, scooter, car, jeep arid light motor vehicle. There was no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. Thus, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. Driver was not having a valid licence to drive transport vehicle. Thus, after making payments to the claimant, right of recovery have been given to the insurer from owner. The award has been affirmed by the High Court. Hence present appeals.
B
c
D
3. This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle?
4. We have answered the question that driver having licence to E drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy.
F
5. Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer. No costs.
G