Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.11, 14, 41 – Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – r.9 – Motor accident involving an oil tanker killing a bicyclist and a pedestrian – Tribunal directed the insurer to pay the award and recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, since the driver did not have a valid licence to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods in view of lack of endorsement on his licence as required u/s.11 r/w r.9 – High Court affirmed the order to pay and recover – Correctness:
Held: r.9 deals with the professional skill of driving a specially designed vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods – The accident was caused due to “rash and negligent driving of the vehicle” which the driver was not entitled to drive because of lack of endorsement on his licence as required u/s.11 r/w r.9 – The breach of non-compliance of the statutory requirement to undergo a training course to upskill the driving efficiency and product safety cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not contributing to the accident – Admittedly, the driver did not have a licence having an endorsement as required under the Act and the Rules to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods – The offending vehicle; the oil tanker, was a vehicle intended to carry goods of dangerous and hazardous nature – Further, the training certificate was produced at the appellate stage for the first time without any explanation for its non-production before the Tribunal, raising genuine suspicion on veracity of certificate and was rightly found not acceptable as per Or. 41 R. 27, CPC – Appeals dismissed, direction to the insurance company to pay and recover, affirmed. [Paras 11, 10, 16-19]
Interpretation of Statutes – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.2, 10,
11 – Additions to driving licence – Words ‘class’ or ‘description’ in s.11, used disjunctively not alternatively:
Held: s.10 enumerates the various classes of vehicles for which license is granted and goods vehicle, simpliciter and those designed to carry dangerous and hazardous goods, fall within the class of ‘transport vehicle’ – Further, clause (j) of s.10(2) specifically speaks of ‘motor vehicle of a specified description’ – s.11 in relation to additions to driving licence, speaks of an existing driving licence to which any other class or description of motor vehicles can be added entitling the holder to thus drive a motor vehicle of more than one class or description – By the use of the words ‘class’ or ‘description’ independently, it is clear that the statute has used it disjunctively and not alternatively – This interpretation is in tune with the statutory scheme, which defines u/s.2 of the definition clause, vehicles of varying description like goods vehicle, heavy passenger vehicle medium goods vehicle and so on and so forth. [Para 13]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.3, 149 – ‘Effective license’ and ‘duly licensed’ – Distinction and various contingencies in which the insurer are absolved from their liability to indemnify, as discussed in Swaran Singh’s case, enumerated. [Para 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.