A learner's licence is valid under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Insurance Company failed to prove breach of policy conditions, leading to a revised compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.

1. This appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenges Judgment and Award dated 23rd March, 2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna in MACP No. 245 of 2010.

2. Facts, which are not in dispute, are that, on 25th October, 2010, Manojkumar Indersing Chauhan was proceeding on motorcycle No MH-21/AA-7075 from Ranjani to Jalna, as a pillion rider. Ratnakar Achyutrao Wadhekar (present Respondent No.2), his colleague teacher, was driving the motorcycle. He gave dash to one cow, who come in the way, due to which Manojkumar fell down and received serious injuries to his head. He was admitted in hospital, however, he succumbed to the injuries. FIR is lodged by the claimant with Sadar Bazar Police Station and Crime No. 294 of 2010 for offence punishable under section 279, 337, 338 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 236/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered against present respondent No.2.

3. Claimant filed claim application contending that deceased was 45 years old and was getting monthly salary of Rs.30,488/-. Compensation of Rs.36,30,752/- was, therefore, claimed.

4. The second respondent – driver of the motorcycle filed his written statement and admitted that he was along with the deceased at the time of the accident, however, he denied that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. He contended that cow had given dash to the motorcycle.

5. Insurance Company opposed the claim, by filing written statement. The Tribunal, after recording evidence, partly allowed the claim against the owner and the Insurance Company and directed them to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.27,56,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. to the claimant. The Insurance Company is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Heard learned advocate for the appellant – insurance Company, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 – claimant and learned advocate for respondent No.2 – owner of the motorcycle. Perused the appeal memo, the impugned Judgment and Award, the record and the citations relied on by the learned advocates for the parties.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company assailed the impugned Judgment and Award contending that at the time of accident the driver / owner of the motorcycle was holding learner’s licence, therefore had no effective driving licence. Therefore, by relying on Rule 3 of the Cental Motor Vehicle Rules, he submits that the same cannot be said to be a valid driving licence and hence, in view of breach of conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay the compensation. He also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, contending that the claimant – wife of the deceased being in service, cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased. According to him, there is an arithmetical error in calculations of the compensation amount. In item No. 5 of paragraph No. 17 of the impugned judgment and Award, 30% excess income is calculated at Rs.6,54,000/-, which should be Rs.5,88,000/-. He submits that considering the fact that mother of the deceased was also claimant, who expired during pendency of the claim petition, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. From the income of the deceased, 30% income tax ought to have been deducted, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in “Shamwati Sharma and Others V/s Karam Singh and Others” 2010 AIR SCW 4391. In support of his submissions, he relied on following judgments :

I. “Rama Nand Pandey and Others V/s Nisha Tiwari and Others” 2005 ACJ 1968

II. “The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited V/s M. Selvam and Others” 2023 ACJ 2100

III. “National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Veena and Others” 2018 ACJ 1558

IV. “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanjappan and Others” 2004 ACJ 721

8. Per contra, learned advocate for the claimant