Foreign Driving Licences: Not Valid in India Without Local Approval
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the principle that foreign driving licences are not automatically valid in India unless they receive local endorsement. This ruling emerged from the case Sameer Gaba v Priyanka & Others, where Justice Deepak Gupta emphasized the requirements outlined in Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
According to the Act, an individual must possess an effective driving licence that authorizes them to operate a vehicle in public places within India. The court clarified that a licence issued abroad does not inherently grant the right to drive in India, echoing its verdict dated September 7.
Justice Gupta stated, “A foreign driving licence does not, merely because it is valid in the country of its issuance, automatically confer a right upon its holder to drive a motor vehicle in India.” This declaration came during the appeal hearing of a driver contesting an order from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Kurukshetra.
The MACT had permitted an insurance company to recover compensation paid to a road accident victim’s family from the driver, who lacked a valid Indian driving licence. This case involved a tragic 2015 road accident that resulted in the death of a nine-month-old child. The tribunal awarded ₹2.49 lakh in compensation to the victim’s family.
In his appeal, the driver argued he was not operating the vehicle at the accident’s occurrence. He referenced the victim’s father’s testimony in separate criminal proceedings, where the driver was not identified. Additionally, the driver pointed out his acquittal in the related criminal case.
More Read
As an alternative defense, the driver mentioned holding a driving licence from Victoria, Australia. However, the court noted the lack of an international driving permit valid in India or any endorsement from an Indian authority, which would validate the foreign licence for operation in India.
Justice Gupta further clarified, “A licence issued by a foreign authority cannot be equated with a driving licence valid under Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act merely on the ground that it authorized the holder to drive a similar class of vehicle in the foreign country.”
The court also highlighted the difference in standards between criminal proceedings and tribunal findings. Although the victim’s father’s testimony varied between the tribunal and criminal court, the tribunal’s findings were based on a preponderance of probabilities, a different standard than criminal proceedings.
More Read
Regarding the non-examination of the vehicle’s owner, the court stated that liability does not hinge on a formal employment contract between the driver and the owner. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the insurance company’s right to recover compensation.
Advocates Prateek Mahajan and Arche Mahant represented the appellant, while Advocate Vinod Chaudhari represented the respondents.
