(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 11 and 14—Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989—Rule 9—Statutory Breach—No Endorsement for Hazardous Goods Driving—Driver of an oil tanker involved in an accident did not possess the mandatory endorsement under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, required for driving vehicles carrying hazardous goods—Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act limits the validity of such licences to one year, requiring a refresher course for renewal—Rule 9 mandates not only a valid licence but also specific training and certification in safe driving and handling of hazardous substances—The absence of such endorsement was held to be a statutory breach, not a mere technical irregularity—As the vehicle was confirmed to be carrying oil at the time o...

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 173—Civil Misc—Appeal—Insurance Liability—Validity of Driver’s License—In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant-insurance company challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur, which held the insurer jointly and severally liable for compensating the claimants following a fatal accident—The insurance company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license to operate a transport vehicle, thus breaching the policy conditions—However, the court found that the driver held a valid Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license, which, as per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2024), is sufficient to oper...

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 10(2)(d) & (e)—Appeals Related to Motor Accident Compensation—Liability and Enhanced Awards—The appeals arise from a motor accident case where Laxmandas and Sukhdev sustained injuries when their motorcycle was hit by a three-wheeler taxi driven negligently by Mangilal—The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs.2,06,134/- to Laxmandas and Rs.76,563/- to Sukhdev, with interest, and held the vehicle owner and driver liable—The appellants (owner and driver) appealed, contesting the liability based on the driver's lack of a commercial license, but the court referred to a Supreme Court ruling in Rambha Devi (2024) that upheld a driver's eligibility with a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license for operating a transport vehicle, dismissing the l...

LMV Vehicles Drivers. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 2(21), 10(2)(d)—What is the meaning to be given to the definition of "light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the MV Act?—Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it?—The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for a separate endorsement for operating a 'Transport Vehicle', if a driver already holds a LMV license—clarified that the exceptions carved out by the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws, or vehicles carrying hazardous goods, will remain unaffected by this decision—The reference is answered in the above terms—The Registry is directed to list the matters before the appropriate Bench after obtaining directions from Hon'ble th...

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988—Section 173 – Appeal—Driving licence—Accident in 2014, the High Court set aside the recovery rights claimed by the insurance company—The accident involved a collision between the appellant's truck, driven by an employee, and another truck, causing injuries and death—The insurance company argued that the appellant's driver lacked a valid license, verified by the Nagaland Transport Authority, and that the appellant failed to report the accident as required—The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the appellant's non-obligation to verify the driver's license authenticity and the absence of specific pleas or evidence regarding the appellant's insurance policy violation—Citing Supreme Court precedents on insurance company and vehicle ...

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 163A—Road accident resulted in the death of the claimant's son—Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) found the owner of the vehicle responsible and awarded compensation—However, the High Court overturned the decision, citing lack of evidence and a valid driving license—Supreme Court reinstated the MACT's judgment, clarifying that Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act doesn't require proof of negligence—They corrected multiplier used for calculating compensation and ordered the insurance company to pay the adjusted amount within three months—Allowed. ...