SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mahender Singh & Ors. – Respondents
MAC.APP. 399 of 2018 & CM APPL. 16319 of 2018
Decided On : 03-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.A.K. Soni, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr.S.N. Parashar, Advocate for LR's of R-1.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person holding a learner's licence is entitled to drive a vehicle, and any condition in the insurance contract prohibiting this would run counter to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

Learner's Licence - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3), Section 14 - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the interpretation of learner's licence in the context of insurance claims. The court relied on the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, which held that a person holding a learner's licence is entitled to drive a vehicle and that a condition in the contract of the Insurance Company prohibiting this would run counter to the provisions of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, arguing for the right to recover compensation paid to the claimant from other respondents due to the offending vehicle being driven by a person holding only a learner's licence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the appellant's challenge, citing the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the interpretation of learner's licence as discussed in the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.

Issues: The main issue was the appellant's right to recover compensation paid to the claimant from other respondents due to the driver holding only a learner's licence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of learner's licence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the precedent set in the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. to conclude that the appellant had no right to recover the compensation paid.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the awarded amount was to be released in favor of the legal heirs of the respondent no.1.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the Award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North West District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in a MACT Case no.91/2018 (new No.50741/2016) titled Sh.Mahender Singh v. Sh.Sohan Arya & Ors., directing the appellant herein to pay a compensation of Rs.27,08,120/- alongwith 9% p.a. rate of interest on the amount of Rs.18,52,520/- to the respondent no. 1/claimant.

2. The limited challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Award is that though it was an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.2, who was holding only a learner's licence, the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting a right to the appellant to recover the compensation paid to the respondent no.1 from the respondent nos.2 and 3.

3. I find no merit in the above challenge.

4. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, the Supreme Court, on the issue of motor vehicle being driven by a person holding a learner's licence, has held as under:

    "Learner's licence

    93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14.] A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not "duly licensed" resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act.

    94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learner's licences are granted under the Rules framed by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the learner's licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner's licence would, thus, also come within the purview of "duly licensed" as such a licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is now a well- settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well-settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage.

    95. Mandar Madhav Tambe case [(1996) 2 SCC 328: 1996 SCC (Cri) 307] , whereupon the learned counsel placed reliance, has no application to the fact of the matter. There existed an exclusion clause in the insurance policy wherein it was made clear that the insurance company, in the event of an accident, would be liable only if the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence or a permanent driving licence "other than a learner's licence". The question as to whether such a clause would be valid or not did not arise for consideration before the Bench in the said case. The said decision was rendered in the peculiar fact situation obtaining therein. Therein it was stated that "a driving licence" as defined in the Act is different from a l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top