The main legal point established in the judgment is that the breach of terms and conditions of an insurance policy, the requirements for holding an effective learner's license, and the duty of the owner and driver are crucial factors in determining liability for compensation in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Jawalkar, J. - The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Award in Claim Petition No.14 of 2008 dated 07/01/2011 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North, Panaji holding the appellant Insurance Company along with the respondent no.2 driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, the respondent no.3- the instructor and the respondent no.4 owner liable to pay the compensation to the claimant i.e. the respondent no.1.

2. Shri Afonso, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the driver respondent no.2 was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, who was not holding an effective license at the time of the accident. As such there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the appellant would not be liable to pay any compensation.

3. It is pointed out that the accident took place at around 8.45 hours on 28/02/2007 and the respondent no.2 secured the learning license on the same day from Mahiti Ghar. The office of Mahiti Ghar itself used to open at around 10.00a.m.. This position is not disputed. However, attempts were made by the claimant for no reason to dispute the time of accident in oral evidence as 8.45a.m. He deposed in cross that the accident took place at 10.30 hours when no question to that effect about the time of accident put to him. It was pointed out that the time mentioned in the FIR, Complaint and in the Claim Petition itself which is at page No.15 of the paper book is 8.45hours and deliberately in evidence the claimant deposed that the accident took place at 10.30 hours just because to claim the amount against the Insurance Company and to show that there was no breach of any conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 was not having effective license at the time of accident though he was having the license on that day and therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out the terms/conditions from the policy that person entitled to drive including Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's License may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

5. It is further contended that the respondent no.2 was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident learning to drive the vehicle. Therefore, he was required to hold an effective learning license authorising him to drive the vehicle as required under Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989. Such learner's license is to be granted under Section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 by the Licensing Authority. Rule 3 laid down the essential conditions to enable a person learning to drive a vehicle. It was the duty of the owner of the vehicle respondent no.4 as well as the instructor (if it is a driving school vehicle) to verify that the person sitting in the driver's seat is holding a valid and effective driving license. Admittedly, at 8.45 hours the respondent no.2 was not having any effective learning license. Inspite of this fact the owner and the instructor allowed him to sit in the driver's seat which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. He obtained the same on the same day i.e. on 28/02/2007 but after 9.30 hours or so as per the deposition of the Licensing Authority.

6. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal totally erred in answering the issue no.4 regarding nonholding of the learner's license at the time of accident in the negative. It came on record that Mahiti Ghar opens at around 9.30am and therefore there was no question of the respondent no.2 having effective learning license at around 8.45 hours i.e. at the time of accident. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to ap