https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461440 A driver must hold a licence specifically authorising the class of vehicle being driven; a licence covering a non-transport vehicle did not authorise driving a transport autorickshaw, so the licence was ineffective for the vehicle involved. Even so, to protect the claimants, the Court directed the insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance and granted liberty to recover the amount from the owner. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and recovery rights were preserved against the owner. en-us Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Apr 2025 14:01:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461440 A driver must hold a licence specifically authorising the class of vehicle being driven; a licence covering a non-transport vehicle did not authorise driving a transport autorickshaw, so the licence was ineffective for the vehicle involved. Even so, to protect the claimants, the Court directed the insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance and granted liberty to recover the amount from the owner. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and recovery rights were preserved against the owner. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461440