CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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.

 

Latest Legal News