1990 Supreme(Kar) 408
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Hakeem,Krishnan
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
MASABI - Respondent
M. F. A. 2617 Of 1983
Decided On : 08/20/1990
Advocates Appeared :
M.SOWRI RAJU, Narendrakumar Gunaki
The interpretation of 'duly licensed' under the M. V. Act, 1939 and the liability of the Insurance Company based on the driver's license status.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicles Accidents - Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the M. V. Act, 1939 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-Insurance Company appealed against the direction of the Tribunal to satisfy the compensation for injuries sustained in an accident involving an autorickshaw. The appellant argued that the driver did not hold a valid driving license and therefore was not liable to compensate.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the relevant sections of the M. V. Act, 1939 and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 to determine whether the driver, holding only a learner's license, could be considered 'duly licensed' within the meaning of the Act. The Court found that the driver was not duly licensed to drive the transport vehicle, leading to a breach of the insurance policy condition, and set aside the direction to pay compensation.
Issues: Validity of the driver's learner's license in relation to the insurance policy condition and liability of the Insurance Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The driver holding only a learner's license was not considered 'duly licensed' to drive the transport vehicle, leading to a breach of the insurance policy condition.
Final Decision: The direction to the Insurance Company to pay compensation was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with the parties bearing their own costs.
( 1 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company was 4th respondent before the Motor Vehicles Accidents claims Tribunal, Belgaum in M. V. C. No. 175 of 1981 and being aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal to satisfy the award of Rs. 5,200/- with Court costs and current interest to the claimant therein, in respect of the injuries sustained by her in the accident involving autorickshaw bearing No. MYL 4537, has preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereafter be referred, by virtue of their ranks before the Tribunal.
( 2 ) THE accident is stated to have taken place on 10-12-1980 at 9. 30 a. m. On Poona-Bangalore road connecting Khade-bazaar, Belgaum when the autorickshaw driven by respondent-3 in a rash or negligent manner dashed against her and caused fracture. The appellant pleaded before the Tribunal that the driver of the rickshaw did not hold a valid driving licence and therefore it was not liable to make good the compensation. The Tribunal has held that the driver held a learner's licence and he was also not disqualified from holding a licence and therefore the insurance Company was liable to make good the compensation.
( 3 ) THE vehicle that was being driven was a rickshaw and it was being driven by respondent-3 as an employee of the owner of the rickshaw and further the 3rd respondent was taking passengers in the vehicle at the time of the accident are all undisputed facts.
( 4 ) THE only point that was urged on behalf of the Insurance Company in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was right under such circumstances in fastening-liability on it.
( 5 ) SECTION 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the M. V. Act, 1939 enables the insurer to defend the action brought against it by pleading that there has been breach of a specified condition of the policy viz. , the condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification. One of the conditions limiting the liability of the insurer inserted in insurance policy Ex. D-1 is
"provided that the person driving holds a valid driving licence at the time of the accident or had held a permanent driving licence (other than a learner's licence) and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. "
( 6 ) IN the present case, we are concerned only with the first part of the clause viz. , that the person driving holds a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, as it is nobody's case that respondent-3 held a permanent driving licence or was not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. This condition in the insurance policy would squarely come within the first part of Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act cannot be disputed and has not in fact been disputed. Therefore what remains to be examined is, whether respondent-3 who held only a learner's licence at the relevant time could be held to be 'duly licensed' within the meaning of the aforesaid Section.
( 7 ) IT is Section 3 of the Act which enjoins a person not to drive a motor vehicle in any public place without holding a driving licence. Section 3 (1) of the Act reads as hereunder:
"3. Necessity for driving licence (1) No person shall drive a motor" vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to himself authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a motor vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specially entitles him so to do. "
Transport vehicle has been defined by Section 2 (33) of the Act as hereunder:
"2 (33) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle. " public "service vehicle has been defined by Section 2 (25) of the Act as hereunder: "2 (25) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and include