Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Section 14 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007
In New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal`s case (supra), the driver was having
a licence to ply light Motor Vehicle, whereas, the vehicle was heavy transport
vehicle. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court, that the said driver was not
legally authorized to drive the vehicle, in question, and the Insurance Company,
could not be made liable, on account of
damage caused to the same (vehicle). In Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd`s case (supra), the driver was holding a LMV driving
licence, whereas, he was driving a goods transport vehicle. The licence of the
driver, was valid for 20 years. Under these circumstances, it was held that the
Insurance Company, was right, in repudiating the claim, submitted by the
complainant, on account of the damage caused to the vehicle, in question.
Similar principle of law, was laid down, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Rattan Singh`s case (supra)
decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula,
Haryana. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is squarely
applicable, to the facts of the instant case. It is, therefore, held that Ajay Chaudhari,
driver of the vehicle, nature whereof, was a transport vehicle, was not legally
authorized to drive the same, as, he was holding, only a licence for driving
LMV/MCW. The findings of the District Forum, to the contrary, being erroneous,
are reversed.