Delhi High Court: Driver Holding Valid License for LMV is Not Competent to Drive a Two-Wheeler Without Valid License
Delhi High Court: Driver Holding Valid License for LMV is Not Competent to Drive a Two-Wheeler Without Valid License
The Delhi High Court expressed its displeasure by remarking that the presumption made by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) was without any basis, single judge Justice Rekha Palli observed, that a person who can drive a four-wheeler cannot be automatically presumed to be competent to drive a two-wheeler since the skills required for driving the two vehicles are quite different.
An appeal was filed by the appellant- Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd before the High Court against the order of the MACT. The appellant, argued that in view of the unrebutted testimony of the Record Clerk from the Sarai Kale Khan Transport Authority, New Delhi, it was clear that the driver did not have a valid license to drive a two-wheeler, and thus, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy stood breached.
The appellant contended that the MACT had failed to consider the same while refusing to grant it recovery rights against the driver/owner of the vehicle.
The Court noted that the Record Clerk who was examined by the appellant, had categorically stated before the learned Tribunal that the respondent no. 2 was authorized to drive only a Light Motor Vehicle—Transport i.e., LMV-TR (Commercial Vehicle) and not a two-wheeler vehicle. In fact, this statement of the Record Clerk had been noted in paras 11 and 12 of the impugned award itself.
While ruling that the MACT failed to observe that a Light Motor Vehicle and a two-wheeler have been placed in two distinct categories under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the court said, "Merely because respondent no. 2 held a valid license for a Light Motor Vehicle could not imply that he was authorized or competent to drive a two-wheeler."
"I find that despite having noted the categoric stand of the transport authority that the respondent no.2, driver of the offending vehicle, did not hold a valid license to drive a two-wheeler, which he was driving at the time of the accident, the learned Tribunal rejected the appellant's plea that it was not liable to pay compensation," the Court said.
The Court referred the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Akram Hussain & Ors., which dealt with similar issue, held that it could not be assumed that every person who is competent to drive Light Motor Vehicle would be skilled in driving a two-wheeler as well.
The Court observed that it was evident that the offending vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have a driving license for it, the court said it was a clear case where there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
The judge held, that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant was liable to pay the compensation is unsustainable and is set aside. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed by modifying the impugned award to the extent it does not grant any recovery rights in favor of the appellant by directing that the appellant would be entitled to recover the awarded amount from respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.
