Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Possessing a License for HGV and Driving LMV Cannot Be a Ground to Say That the Driver Was Not Eligible to Drive the LMV Vehicle: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has overruled the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had held that a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) license holder driving a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) at the time of an accident constitutes a breach of insurance policy terms.

The core legal issue revolved around whether a driver possessing an HGV license is eligible to drive an LMV, and if such action constitutes a violation of insurance policy terms under Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The appeal was filed by Mrs. Niranjani Chandramouli against the Tribunal’s decision, which had exonerated Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. From liability on the grounds that the driver held an HGV license while driving an LMV, thus violating the policy terms.

License Classification and Eligibility: Justice Shivkumar Dige clarified that under the MV Act, the categorization of vehicles does not imply a restriction on an HGV license holder from driving an LMV. The judgment pointed out the progression in licensing from LMV to HGV, indicating the eligibility of the driver for both vehicle types.

Insurance Liability: The Court observed that the insurance company cannot evade its liability under the policy. Since the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident and there was no breach of policy terms, the insurance company remains liable for compensation.

Precedents and Interpretation: The Court distinguished the case from previous rulings cited by the Respondent, focusing on the interpretation of Sections 2(16), 2(21), 7, and 10(2) of the MV Act.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, instructing the insurance company not to recover any compensation amount from the vehicle owner if already paid to the claimants. The appellant was also permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited with the Court.

Conclusion: This judgment signifies a crucial interpretation of vehicle classification and driving license eligibility under the Motor Vehicles Act, impacting insurance claims in vehicle accidents.

Date of Decision: 29th February 2024

Mrs. Niranjani Chandramouli Vs Amit Ganpathi Shet & Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

 

Similar News