Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 11 May 2006
- Bench
- BHAGWATI PRASAD
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence this appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Mr.Sanjeev Johari, for the appellant. Heard. Learned counsel for Insurance Company raised question that the driver of the tempo was having licence of LMV i.e. Light Motor Vehicle and it was a transport vehicle, therefore, it was a case of invalid driving licence having possessed by the driver. The Insurance Company is not liable in view of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
Operative part
1988. The necessity of driving licence is for all other kind of transport vehicles other than a motorcab or motor cycle, the tempo comes within the definition of motorcab because its capacity of carrying 6 passengers and the registered passenger carrying capacity of the tempo is around 6, therefore, the vehicle is covered by the definition of motorcab and Section 3 cannot be enforced. That being the position, the holder of the LMV licence is entitled to drive tempo. That being the position, the claim of the Insurance Company is unsustainable, there is no force. Hence this appeal is dismissed. Ashwini/- [BHAGWATI PRASAD],J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence this appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 3.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 11 May 2006. The bench was BHAGWATI PRASAD.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.