Skip to main content

No claim if licence not renewed in time

A driving licence that stood expired on the date of a traffic accident cannot be considered to be legally valid unless it is renewed within the statutory period of 30 days, the Kerala high court has held. If the licence is not renewed so, the insurance company won't be liable to pay compensation, the court said.

A five-member bench led by acting Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan on Wednesday overruled a 2004 decision by a three-member bench on the issue. The three-member bench had held that driving licence would continue to exist in spite of its expiry unless the licensee is disqualified from holding a licence.

The 2004 decision does not lay down the correct law and, therefore, it is overruled, the judgment authored by Justice A V Ramakrishna Pillai for the full bench said.

In addition to Justice Bhushan and Justice Pillai, the full bench comprised Justice A M Shaffique, Justice A Hariprasad, and Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar.

The five-member bench held, "It is beyond dispute that the licence would stand renewed automatically only if the application for renewal is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry thereof. In such cases, even if an accident takes place within the aforementioned period, the driver may be held to be possessing a valid driving licence. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 15 (of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) makes it clear that the driving licence shall be renewed with effect only from the date of renewal, in the event of an application for renewal of licence being made more than 30 days after the date of expiry. That means, on the renewal of licence on such terms, the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to have been holding a valid driving licence from the date of expiry till the date of renewal."

The court was considering an appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company through advocate Mathews Jacob.

The company challenged an order by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Irinjalakuda in 1996 asking it to pay Rs1.36 lakh to Poulose Ouseph for injuries suffered when he was hit by a lorry at Nalukettu public road at Koratty around 11.45am on March 7, 1996.

Insurance company contended before the high court that the licence of the lorry driver had expired prior to date of the accident and, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation.

As the insurance company had already paid the compensation, the high court allowed the company to recover the amount paid from the owner of the vehicle.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/No-claim-if-licence-not-renewed-in-time/articleshow/45976827.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more