Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that an official from the Regional Transport Office (South) at Madurai was examined as P.W.2 and through him, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr.Virumandi, the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of accident was possessed of driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) on the date of accident and the driver had not obtained any badge or additional licence to drive the transport vehicle.

10. Issue of authorisation.--The licensing authority granting an authorisation to drive a transport vehicle shall allot a badge number, sign the driving licence accordingly and return the same to the holder thereof and shall, if it is not the authority which issued the licence at the same time, send intimation in Form LTV to the authority by which the driving licence was issued.

22. As per rule 12, every driver of a transport vehicle shall, in addition to the driving licence, carry an authorisation issued by the owner of the vehicle in the prescribed Form AVT. As per rule 21, the driver of a transport vehicle, while on duty, display on his left chest pocket a white plastic plate of size 8 cm x 2 cm inscribed with his name in bold black letters of size 0.5 cm, both in English and in Tamil, with badge number and the name of the District as set forth in the rule. The cost of the nameplate shall be borne by the driver himself.

23. Rule 37 deals with the conduct of driver of a transport vehicle while on duty. Rule 40 deals with duty of driver in the motor cab stand. Form LTV A is the form of application for authorisation to drive a transport vehicle. Form LTV is the form of intimation of grant of an authorisation to drive a transport vehicle. Form AVT is the form of authorisation to be carried by a driver of a transport vehicle.

24. The 3rd respondent was having only LMV licence to ply light motor vehicle. A person holding mere LMV licence is not a duly licensed driver to drive transport vehicle. To establish that respondent No. 3 did not possess a valid licence to drive transport vehicle, Junior Assistant from the Motor Vehicles Inspector's Office was examined as RW 1. In inspection report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Exh. A3, as against the column "particulars of driver's licence", it is stated as '1407/96-5.6.2016'. In his evidence, RW 1 has clearly stated that the respondent No. 3 was not granted any authorisation to drive the transport vehicle nor allotted a badge number and, therefore, respondent No. 3 was not duly licensed to drive a transport vehicle. By examining RW 1 and by adducing evidence on the driving licence particulars of respondent No. 3, the insurance company has discharged the burden cast upon it in establishing that the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and that there was violation of the policy conditions.

27. Referring to the above answer of RW 1, and referring to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh,: 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), the Tribunal held that respondent No. 3 might have obtained the badge elsewhere and that the same might not have been brought to the notice of the licensing authority and that there was no fundamental breach of the policy conditions. The Tribunal further held that even though the respondent No. 3-driver was not in possession of valid driving licence to drive a maxi cab there was no fundamental breach of the policy conditions and, therefore, the insurance company cannot avoid their liability on the ground that there was breach of condition.