Driving Licence

Yes, Dr.Tripathiji, regarding you first question about the liability of the insurance and to recover from the insured was restated in the case of Zaharalunisha by the Apex Court in 2008, and there are other similar judgemnet of the Supreme Court in that connection, not only that Supreme Court also went up to the extend of invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the case of Zaharulnisha. And  driving licence does not mean one can drive any type of  vehicle of your choice apart from the licence that was issued to you.

                    And prof.S.C. Pratihar, it is really nice to see you back in the forum. I was really missing you and Rajan Salvi. Have a nice day.

                     Thank you all of you for the valuable contribution in this social engineering aspects.

thank you sri assumi ji for confirming my views.

but in this matter the insured should no become hopless and he should search decisions where it might have been held that lisence to drive heavier vehicle includes license to drive lighter vehicle.

Dear Dr.Tripathiji,

                                      Swaran singh case has discussed that in details comparing with english cases on the subject and also the various different chapters of the MV A 1988, as to what is negligence and what is offence etc. Thank you for the lively discussions.

Firstly, you should appear before the court and font let the ex-parte proceedings completed and take a specific stand that the license holder was competent to drive LMV as well as motor vehicle. Here I agree with Mr. Tripathi that there must be some judicial decisions in this regard. 

Is there any provisions in the MVA, which provides for drifferent Driving licence (DV) for Motorbike, DL for scotter, DL for three wheelers, DL for Jeep, DL for maruti car, etc, etc.? Section 11 of the MVA speak about additions to driving licence, which may include heavy driving licence for heavy vehicle. And this is what exactly Swaran singh case laid down. sction 2 clause (26) defined motor car which include motor bike.

licenses would be issued in terms of s. 10 (2) of MV Act specifyin a catagory of moter vehicle .  to ascertain as to what  type vehicles  may fall under that category we have to look the definitions provided under s. 2.

mr assumi is right that u/s. 2(26) motorcycle is included in the definition of motor car. this is helpful for a person driving moter cycle with a DL for motor car.

but there is also separate definition of motor cycle in s. 2 (27). further, light motor vehicle has been defined in s. 2 (21)

therefore all these provisions i.e. s. 2(21), (26), (27) and 10 (2) should be read conjointly. specialy it is to be discussed as to why motor cycle has been dsfined twice.

Please read as exclude motor bike.

Please read as exclude motor bike.

Please read as exclude motor bike in the last line.

Please read as exclude motor bike.

yes. it is not inclusive of motorcycle rather it other than motor cycle.

In Clause 21 of section 2 definition is given as Light motor vehicle not exceeding 7500 Kilograms, so whether motor bike is included or not in that clause as motor bike is less than 7500 kilograms, and motor bike is defined differently in clause 27 of the section and motor car in clause 26 which exclude motor bike.

s. 2 (21) is clear. motor byke is not included in LMV.

yes Dr. there is absolutely no doubt about that, but what about the LMV driving licence, does it apply to motor bike? generally when driving licence is issued it also include motor bike as per section 10 clause 2 of the act. So the question boils down to whether the  driving licence also include motor bike? Because chapter II does not used LMV licence except Learner's licence and driving licence and addition to driving licence as per section 11 of the act.

My next question is what is the consequences of not having a valid driving licence? is it a bar to compensate third party? Can we raed or import the words effective licence as envisaged in section 3 of the act into section 149 which pertain to insurance as regards third party risks. In other words one pertain to penal provisions and the other pertains to beneficial provisions.