Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Yalgurdappa S/O Hanamappa Mulangi on 9 August, 2010
Insofar as
the division bench judgment in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Yalgurdappa, supra is concerned, it was with
reference to a licence, which enabled the driver to drive only a
light motor vehicle and there was no indication or endorsement
that he could drive an Auto rickshaw. On the other hand, as
already pointed out, in the present case on hand, the licence did
contain an endorsement that the driver was licensed to drive a
Light Motor Vehicle (Auto rickshaw).
Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
S.Iyyapan vs M/S United India Insurance Co.Ld.& Anr on 1 July, 2013
Insofar as the decision in MFA 21079/2009 is concerned,
the opinion that the decision in Iyyappa, supra, was rendered
per incuriam was with reference to the facts of the case dealt
with by the learned Single Judge and cannot be held to be a
precedent that is to be followed by this bench. It is an authority
for the case that is decided therein. Therefore, it would not
advance the case of the counsel for the respondent.
Section 2 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs Parasharam Devappa Kurangi on 27 August, 2012
The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent
that an Auto rickshaw could be self driven and apparently, the
endorsement related only to a owner driven Auto rickshaw and
not to a commercial passenger carrying vehicle, which would
be a transport vehicle and therefore, the endorsement did not
enable the driver to drive an Auto rickshaw or the owner could
not have permitted the driver to drive the auto rickshaw with
such an endorsement. However, in the opinion of this court, the
owner of a vehicle is expected to act as a reasonable person
without any forensic knowledge of the niceties of the law. The
endorsement by itself, on the face of it, would indicate that the
driver was enabled to drive a light motor vehicle and
specifically, an Auto rickshaw and this could have apparently
convinced the owner of the vehicle that it was a valid driving
licence and he could not be blamed or accused of having
breached the conditions in entrusting the vehicle to such a
13
driver. As already noticed in a decision of this court in
Devappa's case, supra that even if a licence was issued only in
respect of a Light Motor Vehicle, it did not preclude the
licensee from driving an Auto rickshaw. In the circumstances,
the case of the present appellant can safely be decided while
holding that the endorsement contained in the licence had
clearly indicated that the driver was licensed to drive an Auto
rickshaw. There is no indication that it referred only to a
owner's self driven Auto rickshaw and not a Commercial
passenger carrying vehicle. This is a distinction and a gloss
sought to be placed on the circumstances by the learned
Counsel for the appellant. Therefore, on the facts and
circumstances, the appellant could not be accused of having
committed a breach of the policy conditions in having
entrusted the vehicle to a driver, who did not possess a valid
driving licence. On the face of it, the licence appears to be a
valid driving licence, which enabled the driver to drive an Auto
rickshaw, as well.
1