Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11098
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOHNSON JOHN, J
SIVASANKARAN – Appellant
Versus
REJIN – Respondent
MACA NO. 521 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. P.JAYARAM, SRI.SARATH CHANDRAN K.B.
For the Respondents: SRI.R.SREEHARI, SRI.C.MOHANDAS, SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT, SRI.SACHIN VYAS
An LMV license suffices to drive an auto rickshaw, and Supreme Court judgments are retrospective unless stated otherwise.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - The owner of the vehicle challenged the Tribunal's award permitting the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner and driver after paying the claim petitioner. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver with only a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license. The court ruled that an LMV license suffices for driving an auto rickshaw, as established in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and clarified in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi. The court emphasized that judgments of the Supreme Court are retrospective unless stated otherwise. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The claim petitioner sustained injuries in an accident on 27.02.2011, leading to the claim against the driver, owner, and insurer of the auto rickshaw. The Tribunal awarded based on the driver's negligence.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, and the direction for the insurance company to recover from the owner and driver was set aside.
Issues: Whether a driver with an LMV license can operate an auto rickshaw without additional authorization, and the retrospective effect of Supreme Court judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that an LMV license is sufficient for operating an auto rickshaw, aligning with Supreme Court precedents, and clarified that such judgments are retrospective.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. owner challenges insurance recovery after accident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal sufficiency of lmv license for driving auto rickshaw. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. supreme court's conclusions on lmv and transport vehicle licensing. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. interpretation of transport vehicle licensing requirements. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. judgment's retrospective nature and its implications. (Para 11 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
The owner of the vehicle is challenging the permission granted to the insurance company to recover the award amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle after payment of the amount to the claim petitioner.
2. The claim petitioner, who sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 27.02.2011, filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver, owner and insurer of the autorickshaw involved in the accident and the Tribunal, as per the impugned award, recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw and since the driver of the auto rickshaw was having only a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), the Tribunal allowed pay and recovery in favour of the respondent insurance company.
3. Heard Sri. P. Jayaram, the learned counsel for the appellant, owner of the vehicle, Sri. R. Sreehari, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri. C. Mohandas, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri. Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the legal position is now well settled by the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in inMukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 4 KHC 648 (SC)] and the subsequent decision by a Full Bench of this Court inSjaji v. Pradeesh and others [ 2018 (2) KHC 342 ], that a licence to drive a light motor vehicle is legally sufficient to drive an auto rickshaw, which is a light motor vehicle and there is no additional requirement to obtain any separate endorsement on the licence to drive transport vehicle.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company cited the decision of a Single Bench of this Court dated 29.08.2018 in M.A.C.A No. 2055 of 2011, wherein it was held that as per Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, auto rickshaw is a vehicle which comes under Clause 2(c) and being a motor vehicle of a specified description, the driver of an auto rickshaw requires a licence to drive that specified vehicle.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the 5 Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi [ (2025) 3 SCC 95 ], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court answered a reference after raising the following specific issues:
(i) Whether a driver holding an LMV licence (for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7500 kg) as per Section 10 (2)(d), which specifies “light motor vehicle”, can operate a “transport vehicle” without obtaining specific authorisation under (2)(e) of the MV Act , specifically for the “transport vehicle” class;
(ii) Whether the second part of Section 3 (1) which emphasises the necessity of a driving licence for a “transport vehicle” overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2 (21) of the MV Act ? Is the definition of LMV contained in (21) of the MV Act unrelated to the licensing framework under the MV Act and the MV Rules;
(iii) Whether the additional eligibility criteria prescribed in the MV Act and the MV Rules for “transport vehicles” would apply to those who are desirous of driving vehicles weighing below 7500 kg and have obtained a licence for LMV class under Section 10 (2)(d) of the MV Act ; (iv) What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 which substituted four classes under clauses (e) to (h) in with a single class of “transport vehicle” in (2)(e)?
(v) Whether the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017)
