Motor Accident Claims | Driver With Heavy Goods Vehicle Driving Licence Can Drive Light Motor Vehicles: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held recently that having a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) driving licence does not make a person ineligible to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), as section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for a minimum one-year-old LMV licence as a pre-requisite for HGV licence.Justice Shivkumar Dige set aside a judgment by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal refused to hold...
The Bombay High Court held recently that having a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) driving licence does not make a person ineligible to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), as section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for a minimum one-year-old LMV licence as a pre-requisite for HGV licence.
Justice Shivkumar Dige set aside a judgment by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal refused to hold an insurance company liable in a motor accident on the ground that the offending vehicle was an LMV, but the driver possessed a driving license for HGV.
“This Section prescribes one year minimum driving experience in light motor vehicle before a person issuing driving license to drive a transport vehicle. Admittedly, in the present case the driver of offending vehicle was holding driving license for heavy good vehicle. Though it is categorized in different category, as per Section 10 but after getting experience in driving LMV, the license in HGV is issued. So possessing the license of HGV and driving the LMV vehicle cannot be a ground to say that the driver was not eligible to drive the LMV vehicle”, the court observed.
The court allowed an appeal filed by the owner of the offending car in an accident with a motorcycle challenging the tribunal's order.
The Tribunal had ruled in favour of the insurance company, holding that since the driver did not hold a license specifically for driving an LMV, there was a breach of the insurance policy terms, thereby exonerating the insurance company from liability. It directed the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants and recover it from the owner.
The respondent insurance company contended that according to the Motor Vehicle Act (MV Act), no person can drive a motor vehicle in a public place unless they hold a valid driving license. Even though the driver had an HGV license, it did not authorize him to drive an LMV, it contended. The insurance company argued that the Tribunal's decision was well-founded and required no interference.
The court noted that indeed, at the time of the accident, the driver was operating an LMV while holding an HGV license. However, the court referred to Section 7 of the MV Act and reasoned that the driver's experience in driving an LMV before obtaining an HGV license fulfilled the requirements. Thus, it set aside the Tribunal's observation regarding the breach of insurance policy terms and held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, directed the insurance company not to recover the compensation amount from the vehicle owner, and permitted the appellant to withdraw the statutory amount deposited with the court along with interest.
Advocates Saumen S. Vidyarthi, Ishita Bhole and Kissen Biswal represented the vehicle owner.
Advocate DS Joshi represented the insurance company Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case no. – First Appeal No. 100 of 2021
Case title – Niranjani Chandramouli v. Amit Ganpathi Shet and Ors.