#Driving Licence

The Gujarat High Court set aside a 50% contributory negligence deduction based solely on the claimant's failure to produce a driving licence, holding that absence of a licence must be causally linked to the accident to reduce compensation. The court enhanced the MACT award to Rs 10.03 lakh with 9% interest from the claim date, affirming that procedural lapses cannot override substantive liability.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court nearly doubled compensation for a 23-year-old engineer's death to ₹22.27 lakh, applying the Pranay Sethi formula with a 40% future-prospects addition and an 18-year multiplier. It also barred the insurer's recovery claim, ruling that an out-of-state driving licence cannot be presumed invalid without proof of policy breach.

The Gauhati High Court held that an insurer remains liable to pay compensation to third-party victims under the 'pay and recover' principle even when the driver lacked a valid licence, affirming that such a violation does not absolve the insurer of statutory liability. The ruling reinforces Supreme Court precedent that policy breaches by the driver cannot prejudice innocent third parties' rights to compensation.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that an insurer cannot escape liability merely on the basis of an inconclusive RTI response regarding the driver's licence validity. The burden of proof under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act remains on the insurer, and failure to conclusively establish the driver's lack of a valid licence bars repudiation of claims.

Madras High Court rules that administrative authorities cannot withhold a driving licence solely due to an FIR pendency without following statutory procedures under the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgment reinforces that suspension or cancellation of licences must comply with due process, protecting drivers from arbitrary state action.

Bombay High Court rules that insurers cannot avoid liability under a Farmers' Packaged Insurance Scheme merely by alleging commercial use of a tractor unless supported by documentary proof. The court also held that a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence is valid for driving a tractor, reinforcing claimants' rights in motor accident cases.

Madras HC reinforces that Regional Transport Offices (RTOs) cannot cancel driving licences solely based on an FIR without affording the driver a fair hearing. The ruling mandates procedural fairness under administrative law, ensuring drivers receive a show-cause notice and opportunity to respond before any adverse action.

Karnataka High Court ruled that mere absence of a driving licence does not establish rash or negligent driving under Section 304(A) IPC. The court quashed the chargesheet against a deceased motorcyclist, emphasizing that criminal liability requires proof of actual negligence, not just procedural violations. This sets a precedent for traffic accident cases where licence status is misused to infer guilt.

Karnataka High Court reinforces that insurers cannot evade third-party liability under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act merely because the driver lacked a trailer-specific licence. The ruling clarifies that insurers must compensate victims first and recover costs from the insured later, upholding statutory protection for accident victims.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that insurance companies must pay compensation even if driver holds licence for different vehicle category, subject to recovery from owner/driver.

Bombay High Court holds that minor discrepancies in driver's licence name do not void insurance liability under MV Act if valid L.M.V. licence is otherwise established.