NIRANJANI CHANDRAMOULI Vs. AMIT GANPATHI SHET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this Appeal is at the time of the accident driver of the offending vehicle was holding license of Heavy Goods Vehicle ('HGC' for short) whereas he was driving Light Motor Vehicle ('LMV' for short).

(2.) It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant-Owner of the offending vehicle that, at the time of the accident driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving license of HGV vehicle and he was driving LMV vehicle i.e. offending car. The Tribunal has held that, as driver was not holding license of driving LMV vehicle. Hence, there is breach of Terms and Conditions of the Insurance Policy and exonerated the Insurance Company from paying compensation and had directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the Claimants and recover it from the Appellant, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

(3.) It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company that as per provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act ('M.V. Act' for short) no person shall drive motor vehicle in any public place unless he hold an effective valid driving license. Admittedly, at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was holding license of HGV vehicle and he was driving LMV vehicle. The learned counsel further submitted that as per Sec. 10 of the M.V. Act classification of vehicles is done LMV is categorized in one category and HGV vehicle is categorized in other category. Though the driver of the offending vehicle was holding HGV license it does not mean that he can drive LMV vehicle. He had to obtain license for driving the LMV vehicle. The Tribunal has passed well reasoned order and no interference is required in it. He relied on following judgments: