A learner's license holder must be accompanied by a qualified instructor while driving a motorcycle, as per Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

JUDGMENT :

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.)

1. The appellant i.e. original respondent No.1 in Claim Petition No. 800 of 2003 has challenged the judgment and award dated 25.02.2008 in the aforesaid claim petition passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (herein after referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’). Under the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 31,070/- to the petitioner, who is present respondent No.2, along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The learned Tribunal has held the present appellant and respondent No.2 Insurance Company jointly and severally liable for paying the aforesaid compensation with direction to the respondent No.1/Insurance Company to satisfy the award first and then to recover the amount of compensation from the present appellant/owner by filing Execution Proceedings. Thus, the present appellant has challenged the said “pay and recover” direction issued by the learned Tribunal, by contending that, she was having valid learner’s licence at the time of accident and therefore, the learned Tribunal should have held respondent No.2 Insurance Company solely liable for paying compensation.

2. Admittedly, on the day of accident i.e. on 10.04.2003 at about 2.00 p.m on Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur, present Respondent No.2 i.e. injured in the accident, was walking towards house of his brother-in-law and at that time,the present appellant, who was riding Kinetic Nova No. MH-31- BD-4106, gave dash to him from back side. Respondent No.2/ injured sustained fracture to his left leg and incurred heavy medical expenses which led him to file the present claim petition. The learned Tribunal, after conducting inquiry/trial, found that the appellant was not having valid driving licence and therefore, directed respondent No.1 Insurance Company to satisfy the award and then to recover from the appellant/owner. Hence, this appeal.

3. It is significant to note that the appellant has also filed Civil Application No. 48 of 2009 i.e. application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence in the form of documents, whereby it is contended that she was having valid learner’s licence on the day of accident which was issued to her by the competent authority on 17.12.2002 till 15.06.2003. The appellant has produced copy of said learner’s driving licence along with the copies of correspondence made by her with Insurance Company as well as concerned Regional Transport Officer, Nagpur.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner vehemently submitted that there was no opportunity for the appellant to led the evidence for showing that she was having valid learner’s licence on the day of accident. According to him, the learned Tribunal has cast liability on the appellant mainly because she was not having valid driving licence. However, he further submitted that even the learner’s lenience is held to be valid licence under the various judgments of different High Courts as well as Hon’ble Apex Court. He pointed out that proviso of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is not applicable in case of motorcycle as per the observations of Karnataka High Court and therefore, modification in the impugned judgment for total exemption of the appellant from paying the compensation, is required. According to him, the appellant had already obtained learning licence from the competent authority on 17.12.2002 and same was valid till 15.06.2003. As such, on the day of accident, i.e. on 10.04.2003 she was definitely having valid license as observed by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Swaran Singh 2004 ACJ 1 (SC). The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the following judgments

(I) National Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Swaran Singh and Others [(2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297];

(II) In the High Court of Karnataka in the case of The Senior Divisional Manager the National Insurance Co. Ltd. V