Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)Section 7 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Tilak Ram And Ors. on 19 April, 1985
From the aforesaid it is clear that what was obtained
by respondent No.3 from the authorities under the Act was
not a licence within the meaning of Section 2(5A) of the
said Act. He had obtained a learner's licence allowed him to
be on the road subject to his fulfilling the conditions
contained therein. One of the important conditions was that
if he was driving a motor vehicle then there must be besides
him in the vehicle as an instructor a person duly licenced
to drive the vehicle and sitting insuch a position as to be
able readily to stop the vehicle." It is clear from this
that two learners by themselves cannot be in one car which
is which is being driven by one of them. If the learner
having a learner's licence under the rules is to drive a car
then he must have sitting besides in a person who is duly
licensed. This clearly shows that a "driving licence" as
defined in the Act is different from a learner's licence
issued under Rule 96. In other words, a person would be
regarded as being duly licensed only if he has obtained a
licence under Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act and a
person who has obtained a temporary licence which enables
him to leant driving cannot be regarded as having been duly
licensed. The decision of the single judge of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in United India insurance Company's case
(supra) to which he hes taken a contrary view must be held
to have been incorrectly decided.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
1