Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SANT LAL versus RAJESH & ORS. ETC.

Decided
3 July 2017
Judges listed
ARUN MISHRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 823 ยท 2017 INSC 581
Also cited as
  • AIR 2017 SC 4054 (7 citing judgments)
  • (2017) 8 SCC 590 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 824, margin A

2

The appeals have been preferred by the owner, aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, "the MACT"). The driver was driving a tractor which was attached to the trolley carrying goods. The MACT held that the same becomes transport vehicle though the driver was having licence to drive motor cycle, scooter, car, jeep arid light motor vehicle. There was no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. Thus, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. Driver was not having a valid licence to drive transport vehicle. Thus, after making payments to the claimant, right of recovery have been given to the insurer from owner. The award has been affirmed by the High Court. Hence present appeals.

p. 824, margin B

3

This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle?

p. 824, margin D

4

We have answered the question that driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy.

p. 824, margin D

5

Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer. No costs.

p. 824, margin F