Point of Law: Section 3 of the Act, 1988 reads as Necessity for driving licence.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than [a motorcab or motor cycle] hired for his use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

JUDGMENT :

Whether the person holding a driving licence to drive the ‘light motor vehicle’ is required to have transport vehicle endorsement to drive an autorickshaw as a public transport vehicle is the question before this Court.

2. The insurer is assailing the judgment and award dated 24.10.2009 passed in MVC No.1090/2007 wherein the MACT, Mangaluru fastened the liability on the insurer.

3. Essential facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal can be summed up as under :

- The autorickshaw in question is covered by the policy issued by the insurer.

- The driver had a licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’.

- The autorickshaw was used as a public transport vehicle.

- On 28-11-2006, the autorickshaw met with an accident, and the claimant, a passenger in the said vehicle, suffered injuries.

- The driver did not have an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle.

- The plea of the insurer that the licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ without an endorsement to drive the ‘transport vehicle’ is not a valid licence to drive an autorickshaw is not accepted by the Tribunal.

- Tribunal held that a licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ is a valid licence to drive the autorickshaw even if it is used as a public transport vehicle.

- The insurer is in appeal challenging the liability.

4. Heard Shri Venkatesh Bhagat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer. The respondents/claimant and the owner are served and unrepresented.

5. Shri Venkatesh Bhagat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer would urge the following contentions:-

- The vehicle involved in the accident is an auto-rickshaw which fits into the definition of “motorcab” as defined under Section 2(25) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short). The vehicle involved in the accident cannot be construed as a “light motor vehicle” as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act, 1988.

- In terms of the requirement of Section 10(2) of the Act, 1988, the licence to drive a vehicle that is not falling under the categories specified in Section 10(2)(a) to (i) has to fall under Section 10(2) (j) of the Act. Since the autorickshaw does not fall under the categories specified in Section 10 (2) (a) to (i), the same would necessarily fall under Section 10(2) (j) of the Act. In that event, the licence should contain a specific mention that the driver is licenced to drive an autorickshaw. Since no such endorsement is found in the light motor vehicle licence issued in favour of the driver of the autorickshaw, it is to be held that the driver had no licence to drive the autorickshaw.

- Section 3 of the Act, 1988 mandates a specific endorsement to drive the ‘transport vehicle’. Admittedly, the driver of the autorickshaw involved in the accident did not possess a specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle or to drive an autorickshaw. Thus there is no valid driving licence to drive an autorickshaw and there is a breach on the part of the insured, as specified in Section 149(2) of the Act, 1988.

- The Tribunal erred in holding that an autorickshaw is a light motor vehicle and the licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ is a valid licence to drive the autorickshaw.

- Form KVM 2, the format prescribed under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 requires the motor vehicle description to be specified in the licence and autorickshaw is not specified in the driving licence produced before the tribunal.

6. The learned counsel would also submit that the ratio in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company-(2017) 14 SCC 663 is not applicable here as in the said judgment, the Apex Court has only considered whether the licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ is good enough to drive a transport vehicle falling under the category of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. According to Mr. Bhagat, since an autorickshaw is a motorcab, it cannot be classified as a light motor vehicle and the ratio laid down in the case cannot be applied to the present case where the vehicle in q