Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Union government if a change in law is warranted on the legal question of whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a <keyword id="1049502" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="transport-vehicle" source="Orion">transport vehicle</keyword> of a particular weight. Observing that these are policy issues impacting the livelihood of lakhs of people, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="445662" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="Orion">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> said the government needs to take a "fresh look" at the matter while asserting that it needs to be taken up at the policy level. The top court asked the Centre to wrap up the exercise within two months and apprise it about the decision taken. It said any interpretation of the law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety and the safety of other users of public transport. The top court had earlier sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani in dealing with a legal question about whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a transport vehicle of a particular weight. The constitution bench had said knowing the position of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be necessary after it was argued that the apex court's 2017 verdict in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited was accepted by the Centre and rules were amended to align them with the judgement. In the Mukund Dewangan case, a three-judge bench of the top court had held that transport vehicles, the gross weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg, are not excluded from the definition of LMV. "There may be lakhs of drivers across the country who are working on the basis of Dewangan judgment. This is not a constitutional issue. It is purely a statutory issue," the bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, said. "This is just not the question of law but also the social impact of the law... Road safety has to be balanced with the social purpose of the law and you have to see if this causes serious hardships. We cannot decide issues of social policy in a constitution bench," it said. The apex court said once the government informs its stand to the court, the hearing in the constitution bench will be taken up thereafter. The Constitution bench is dealing with a legal question which reads: "Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of 'light motor vehicle' could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a 'transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class' having unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg." On July 18, the constitution bench commenced hearing as many as 76 petitions to deal with the legal question. It had then heard the arguments of senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for one of the petitioners, on alleged anomalies in the Motor Vehicle Act with regard to regimes for dealing with the grant of driving licenses for different categories of vehicles. The lead petition was filed by M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd. The legal question has given rise to various disputes over payment of claims by insurance companies in accident cases involving transport vehicles being driven by those having licences to drive LMVs. The Motor Vehicle Act provides for different regimes for the granting of driving licences for different categories of vehicles. The matter was referred to the larger bench on March 8, 2022, by a three-judge bench headed by Justice U U Lalit, since retired. It was said that certain provisions of the law were not noticed by the apex court in the Mukund Dewangan judgement and "the controversy in question needs to be revisited".

Can you drive a light transport vehicle if you have an LMV licence? SC asks Centre to respond

<ul><li>Once you have reported the theft to the police, get in touch with your insurance provider immediately to report the incident. </li><li>Providing incorrect or misleading information or granting someone else permission to use the vehicle at the time of the theft can lead to claim rejection. </li><li>The amount of motor insurance claim settlement is calculated based on the insured declared value (IDV). </li></ul>In a recent court ruling, an insurance company was asked to pay 70% of the claim amount for a <keyword id="69401" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bike-theft" source="Orion">bike theft</keyword> – this was despite the claim being filed 100 days after the theft. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), however, is yet to issue clarifications on the matter. With <keyword id="6514325" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="vehicle-theft" source="Orion">vehicle theft</keyword> a serious issue in India, it’s important to know all the rules around vehicle theft claims, so that your claim is not rejected. A comprehensive insurance policy offers protection against vehicle theft, but the insured needs to be completely aware of the claim process. “The first step after your vehicle is stolen is to file a police report [FIR]. This report will provide important details about the theft, such as the date, time, location, and a description of the parking details and last usage details of the stolen vehicle,” says TA Ramalingam, chief technical officer, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance. Notify the insurance company immediately In case of vehicle theft, time is of the essence. “It is recommended that the insurer is immediately notified on the discovery of the vehicle theft, and the claim should also be filed without delay, as any delay in filing the claim can potentially affect the processing and settlement of the claim,” says Parthanil Ghosh, president, retail business, HDFC ERGO General Insurance. The specific time limit for filing a claim for vehicle theft may vary depending on the terms and conditions of the insurer. Your insurer will furnish you with a claims form that will help you through the process of filing the claim. Your insurance company will probably require some supporting documentation to substantiate your claim. This could involve submitting the police first information report (FIR), the original registration certificate (RC), all original keys, and any other pertinent records to your insurance provider. Agrees Yagnesh Dosshi, co-founder and director, Raghnall Insurance Broking and Risk Management. “Once the FIR is filed, the policyholder needs to report the theft to the insurance company immediately and initiate a claim request as soon as possible, ideally within 24-48 hours of the theft.” Why your vehicle theft claim may rejected An insurance company may deny a claim for vehicle theft under certain circumstances. It is important for the policyholder to report the theft to her insurance provider as soon as possible, as any delay in reporting may result in the denial of the claim. Providing incorrect or misleading information to the insurer or granting someone else permission to use the vehicle at the time of the theft can also lead to rejection of the claim. Additionally, if the policyholder's insurance policy was inactive at the time of the theft, the claim may be denied by the insurer. “Also, if the insurance company has reason to suspect that the policyholder was involved in the theft of their own vehicle, they may reject the claim, which is called a breach of trust and is against the principle of utmost good faith in insurance,” says Ramalingam. How much compensation are you entitled to? In the event that a claim for vehicle theft is approved, the amount of compensation you receive will be determined by the terms and conditions of your insurance policy as well as the insured declared value (IDV) of the stolen vehicle. The IDV is the amount that you had declared as the vehicle's value when you purchased the insurance policy, and it serves as the maximum amount that your insurer will pay out in the event of a total loss or theft. “In case the vehicle has been purchased with a bank loan then the insurer will reimburse the payout amount to the bank,” says Ghosh. If the stolen vehicle is found, the insurance company will compensate for any damages that occurred to the vehicle during the theft.

Victim of a car theft? Here is all you need to know about claims

The government on Tuesday announced further extension till September 30 for validity of <keyword id="9373085" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="motor-vehicle-documents">motor vehicle documents</keyword>, including driving license and vehicle fitness, in view of COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier, the Centre through an advisory on March 30 announced extension of the validity of fitness, permit (all types), driving license, registration or any other concerned document till June 30. "Given the current circumstances to avoid hardships being faced by <keyword id="6434094" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Transporters">transporters</keyword> and citizens, state governments are further advised that these documents be considered valid till September 30, 2020 for enforcement purpose," Road Transport and <keyword id="8120463" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="highway-minister-nitin-gadkari">Highway Minister Nitin Gadkari</keyword> said. He said the government had earlier on March 30 extended the validity of documents till June 30, 2020. "Taking into consideration the grim situation still continuing due to conditions for prevention of spread of COVID-19 across the country, it is advised that ...the validity of Fitness, Permit (all types), Learner's License, Driving License, Registration or any other concerned document whose extension of validity could not or not likely be granted due to lock-down and which has expired since Feb 1, 2020 or will expire till September 30, 2020, the same may be treated to be valid till September 30, 2020," as per the notification from <keyword id="6602555" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-ministry-of-road-transport">the Ministry of Road Transport</keyword> and Highways issued today. In order to facilitate citizens during the period and conditions for prevention for COVID–19, the ministry had also issued a gazette notification on May 21, relaxing the fees validity and /or additional fee under <keyword id="9373810" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-central-motor-vehicles-rules">the Central Motor Vehicles Rules</keyword>, 1989, till July 31, 2020. Now the state/UTs have also been requested to consider provisions available under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or other such provisions available under other Acts, for considering relaxation in requirement of permit, or fees or taxes for renewal / penalty for permits etc to provide relief during these extra ordinary circumstances of COVID-19, as per the notification. "... considering the situation for prevention of COVID-19 still continues, and as per the requests received, Shri Gadkari directed his Ministry to issue advise for extension of this period till 30th Sept for treating the documents valid for enforcement purposes," the ministry said in a statement. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/data-of-coronavirus-patients-state-wise-in-india/articleshow/74669748.cms">Coronavirus cases in India state wise</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/topic/coronavirus">Coronavirus News and Updates</a>

Government extends validity of motor vehicle documents till September 30

<ul><li>The developing <keyword id="21718" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="asia" source="Orion">Asia</keyword>'s economy will grow 4.2 per cent this year and 4.6 per cent next year, <keyword id="6355976" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="adb" source="Orion">ADB</keyword> said.</li><li>The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has lowered its economic growth forecasts for the developing Asia region, amid a worsened global outlook.</li><li>Growth in China is expected to slow in 2022 to 3 per cent against a 3.3 per cent expansion predicted in a September report.</li></ul> The Manila-based bank maintained the gross domestic product growth projections for <keyword id="3658" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="india" source="Orion">India</keyword> at 7 per cent this fiscal year and 7.2 per cent next fiscal year. The Bank also added even with the downgraded forecast, developing Asia will still do better than other regions globally, both in terms of growth and inflation. The developing Asia's economy will grow 4.2 per cent this year and 4.6 per cent next year, ADB said in a regular supplement to the <keyword id="1006845" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="asian-development-outlook" source="Orion">Asian Development Outlook</keyword> (<keyword id="199985" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="ado" source="Orion">ADO</keyword>) 2022, released on Wednesday. ADB estimated in September that the economy of the region would grow 4.3 per cent in 2022 and 4.9 per cent in 2023. Monetary policy tightening by central banks globally and in the region, the protracted Russian invasion of Ukraine, and recurring lockdowns in the People's Republic of China (PRC) are slowing down developing Asia's recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, ADB said. Restrictions under the "zero-Covid" approach, along with a struggling property market, have led to another downgrade of the PRC's growth outlook. "Asia and the Pacific will continue to recover, but worsening global conditions mean that the region's momentum is losing some steam as we head into the new year," said ADB Chief Economist <keyword id="128536" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="albert-park" source="Orion">Albert Park</keyword>. "Governments will need to work together more closely to overcome the lingering challenges of Covid-19, combat the effects of high food and energy prices--especially on the poor and vulnerable--and ensure a sustainable, inclusive economic recovery." ADB lowered its forecast for inflation in the developing Asia and the Pacific this year to 4.4 per cent from 4.5 per cent. However, the bank raised its projection for next year to 4.2 per cent from 4 per cent, due to lingering inflationary pressures from energy and food. Growth in China, which is the largest economy in Asia, is expected to slow in 2022 to 3 per cent against a 3.3 per cent expansion predicted in a September report. The forecast for next year was cut to 4.3 per cent from 4.5 per cent, due to the global slowdown, according to the Bank. Gross domestic product growth projections for India were maintained at 7 per cent this fiscal year and 7.2 per cent next fiscal year, according to the ADB. Even with the downgraded forecasts, the ADB expects developing Asia will still do better than other regions globally, both in terms of growth and inflation. ADB's growth forecast for <keyword id="53564" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="southeast-asia" source="Orion">Southeast Asia</keyword> this year was raised to 5.5 per cent from 5.1 per cent, amid robust consumption and tourism recovery in Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Projections for next year, however, were lowered to 4.7 per cent from 5 per cent due to weakening global demand. The growth forecast for the <keyword id="15779915" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="caucasus-and-central-asia" source="Orion">Caucasus and Central Asia</keyword> this year was upgraded to 4.8 per cent from 3.9 per cent, while the projection for the Pacific was raised to 5.3 per cent from 4.7 per cent, due to a strong tourism recovery in Fiji. ADO is published every April, with an update in September and brief supplements published normally in July and December. Developing Asia refers to the bank's 46 developing members. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/tata-motors-to-hike-prices-of-commercial-vehicles-by-up-to-2-from-january/articleshow/96193372.cms">Tata Motors to hike prices of commercial vehicles by up to 2% from January</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/not-good-for-govt-to-share-data-in-aggregated-form-g20-sherpa-amitabh-kant/articleshow/96192773.cms">'Not good' for govt to share data in aggregated form: G20 Sherpa Amitabh Kant</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/five-women-newsmakers-in-2022-in-india-droupadi-murmu-madhabi-puri-buch-samantha-ruth-prabhu-in-the-list/slidelist/96191677.cms">Droupadi Murmu, Madhabi Puri Buch, Samantha Ruth Prabhu and more: Five women newsmakers of 2022</a>

ADB trims economic growth forecast for developing Asia; retains India FY23 GDP growth at 7%

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the US is not required to secure water for the Navajo Nation.</li><li>Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent comparing the plight of the Navajos to waiting at the DMV.</li></ul>Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an impassioned dissent</a> comparing the Navajo Nation's fight over water rights to the experience of "any American who has spent time at the Department of Motor Vehicles.""The Navajo have waited patiently for someone, anyone, to help them, only to be told (repeatedly) that they have been standing in the wrong line and must try another," Gorsuch wrote.The high court ruled 5-4 in Arizona v. Navajo Nation on Thursday that under an 1868 treaty, the US is not required to secure water for the Navajo Nation.Specifically, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who delivered the majority opinion, argued that the Navajo Nation was asking the federal government to take "affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajos."But Gorsuch wrote in his dissent that the majority "rejects a request the Navajo Nation never made."Instead, he wrote, "the relief the Tribe seeks is far more modest."The Navajo "have a simple ask: They want the United States to identify the water rights it holds for them," he wrote. "And if the United States has misappropriated the Navajo's water rights, the Tribe asks it to formulate a plan to stop doing so prospectively."Gorsuch, who was nominated by then President Donald Trump in 2017, has <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-neil-gorsuch-clashes-conservative-justices-native-law-tribal-sovereignty-2022-7">a long history</a> of <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gorsuch-slams-supreme-court-decision-reducing-tribal-authority-in-oklahoma-2022-6">ruling in favor of Indigenous rights</a>. And at 26 pages, his dissent in Arizona v. Navajo Nation was twice as long as the majority opinion. The court's three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — joined Gorsuch in his dissent. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett joined in the majority opinion.Gorsuch in his dissent underscored the Navajo Nation's efforts to avoid taking its case to the Supreme Court.The US "has never denied that the Navajo may have water rights in the mainstream of the Colorado River (and perhaps elsewhere) that it holds in trust for the Tribe," Gorsuch wrote. "Instead, the government's constant refrain is that the Navajo can have all they ask for; they just need to go somewhere else and do something else first."They "have tried it all. They have written federal officials. They have moved this Court to clarify the United States' responsibilities when representing them," he wrote. "They have sought to intervene directly in water-related litigation. And when all of those efforts were rebuffed, they brought a claim seeking to compel the United States to make good on its treaty obligations by providing an accounting of what water rights it holds on their behalf. At each turn, they have received the same answer: 'Try again.'"<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/navajo-nation-quest-water-justice-arrives-supreme-court-rcna73200" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">NBC News</a> highlighted the stakes of the case in March.Crystal Tulley-Cordova, a hydrologist in the Navajo Nation's department of water resources, told NBC that the tribe needs enough water to transition from "survival mode to thriving mode."The Navajo Nation first filed a lawsuit in 2003 arguing that the US government was required to ensure that the tribe had enough access to water on its reservation. Twenty years later, the litigation wound up before the high court.Gorsuch in his dissent wrote that the majority "neglect[ed]" to take into account the violent history leading up to the Treaty of 1868 establishing the Navajo Reservation, the "discussions that surrounded that Treaty," and "the many steps the Navajo took to avoid this litigation."But he highlighted that the majority opinion left open the possibility that the Navajo can seek to intervene in future cases that "affect their claimed interests" in water-rights litigation."After today," Gorsuch wrote, "it is hard to see how this Court (or any court) could ever again fairly deny a request" from the Navajo to intervene in such cases.That leaves the tribe "in a familiar spot," he continued. As they did at <a href="https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/navajo/bosque-redondo/bosque-redondo.cshtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bosque Redondo</a>, "they must again fight for themselves to secure their homeland and all that must necessarily come with it. Perhaps here, as there, some measure of justice will prevail in the end."

In a scathing dissent, Neil Gorsuch compared the Navajo Nation's plight to the experience of 'any American who has spent time at the Department of Motor Vehicles'

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-owner">Tesla owner</a> ordered a Cybertruck and said he later realized it didn't comfortably fit in his new apartment complex.</li><li>The Tesla dealership refused to buy back the vehicle or let him resell it.</li></ul>Blaine Raddon watched the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-truck-cybertruck">Cybertruck</a> launch while he was with his wife in Bali — and he didn't waste any time when placing his preorder for the vehicle.Raddon finally received his truck a few weeks ago. Last week, he posted on X, formerly Twitter, that he wants to return it, but <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla">Tesla</a> isn't willing to buy it back or let him resell it. That's because there's a Cybertruck-specific portion of Tesla's Motor Vehicle Order Agreement, which Raddon signed when taking delivery, which states that he can't resell the vehicle for one year. If the contract is disregarded, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-cybertruck-clause-sue-cybertruck-owners-resale-2023-12">Tesla says it can sue for up to $50,000 in damages</a>, "or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater." Tesla can also refuse to sell the owner future vehicles, the agreement said.Since ordering the vehicle, Raddon's living circumstances have changed, he told Business Insider. He said that he and his wife separated and he's since moved into a new apartment complex, and his new Cybertruck doesn't fit comfortably in its parking space.Raddon, who owned multiple Teslas prior to the Cybertruck, said he didn't give much thought to whether the Cybertruck would fit in the new space.However, upon its arrival, he told BI that he realized the Cybertruck was "so much bigger" than expected, and he had to make a four-point turn to navigate it into the parking spot. He also said he struggles to get in and out of the truck with the amount of space he has on each side.<div type="image" title="Tesla Cybertruck sticking out" height="2268" width="3024" msid="110600763" hostid="261" sizebytes="395646"></div>Raddon reached out to the Tesla dealership manager in Salt Lake City over email on May 22 and said he wanted to return the truck. BI reviewed the email exchange.The written request didn't include details about his changed circumstances but referenced a conversation that happened in person with the Tesla dealership manager. Raddon said he told the manager directly that the Cybertruck was bigger than he expected and asked for one of four solutions: reverse the transaction, trade in the Cybertruck for a new sedan, sell it back to Tesla, or authorize him to sell it without a profit or mark-up.The Tesla dealership manager sent a response on May 23, disagreeing that Raddon's reasoning "warrants an unforeseen circumstance that would trigger Tesla's purchase" of his Cybertruck. He also said Raddon is bound by the one-year prohibition to selling his Cybertruck privately.The manager cited the Motor Vehicle Order Agreement with Tesla's "no resellers" policy for the Cybertruck. While the contract states that Tesla can make an exception if an unexpected situation forces an owner to sell it within that year, that can only occur if Tesla grants permission after accepting an owner's written request.If granted, the owner would receive back the amount of the original purchase price minus a deduction of 25 cents per mile driven, reasonable wear and tear costs, and any repairs needed to meet Tesla's used car standards.The manager at Tesla's Salt Lake City dealership did not respond to BI's request for comment ahead of publication.Raddon responded to the email with a lengthier written explanation, detailing that when he purchased the Cybertruck, he lived in a single-family residence and has since moved out of state. He also emphasized that he wasn't trying to make a profit and understood that if Tesla repurchased his vehicle, he would suffer some loss from the original amount he paid."I am trying to remedy an unfortunate circumstance that the Cybertruck is not manageable in my living situation," Raddon said in the email response."Making me keep a truck that does not fit my circumstances appears to be unfair and not at all the spirit of the no sale language in the contract," he added in the note.Raddon told BI that he's a rule-follower and he doesn't plan to go against Tesla's verdict on the matter or hire a lawyer to dispute the decision. He also said his building is okay with him keeping the vehicle there, but they won't be held liable if the truck gets damaged by another car while protruding from the parking spot.Tesla did not respond a request for comment.A week after sending his longer note to Tesla in an attempt to appeal the decision, Raddon said he's still waiting for a response.

You Searched For "central motors vehicles rules" and got 6 results

Can you drive a light transport vehicle if you have an LMV licence? SC asks Centre to respond

PTI

Victim of a car theft? Here is all you need to know about claims

Anagh Pal

Government extends validity of motor vehicle documents till September 30

PTI

ADB trims economic growth forecast for developing Asia; retains India FY23 GDP growth at 7%

ANI

In a scathing dissent, Neil Gorsuch compared the Navajo Nation's plight to the experience of 'any American who has spent time at the Department of Motor Vehicles'

Sonam Sheth

Cybertruck owner says he's stuck with a vehicle that's too big for his parking spot, and Tesla won't let him return or resell it

Ana Altchek

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides