Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.

Lalit K Sharma, does not appear to be correct in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled S. IYYAPAN Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2013) 7 SCC 62, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company (2013) 10 SCC 217 and Kulwant Singh and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186. In the aforesaid judgments it has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires a driver to hold licence with respect to "class" of vehicle not with respect to the "type" of vehicle and as such, findings returned by learned MACT below qua validity of driving licence held/possessed by respondent No. 2 are totally contrary to the law prevalent at the time of passing of the impugned award. Hon'ble Apex Court recently in judgment dated 3.7.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 titled Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited has again reiterated that as per Section 10 of Act driver needs to hold licence with respect to "class" of vehicle and not with respect to "type" of vehicle. Hon'ble Apex Court, while interpreting Section 10 of the Act ibid, further held that in one class of vehicle, there may be different types of vehicles, but if they fall in the same class of vehicle, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. In the aforesaid judgment, .

transport vehicle.

40. In S. Iyyapan (supra), this Court has considered the decisions in Ashok Gangadhar (supra), Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) as well as Prabhu Lal (supra) and has laid down thus:

"18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab.

This Court has rightly held in S. Iyyapan (supra) that it was not necessary for the driver to get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab as he was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle.

41. In Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186, this Court has referred to the decisions in S. Iyyapan (supra) and Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) and has laid down that once the driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive commercial vehicle of that category. In Kulwant Singh (supra) it has been laid down thus:

9. In S. Iyyapan (2013) 7 SCC 62, the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive "light motor vehicle" could drive "light motor vehicle" used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the insurance Co. could not disown its liability. It was observed: (SCC p. 77, para 18) "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light r motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle.