A learner's license is valid under the Motor Vehicles Act, and insurance policies cannot exclude liability based on the absence of a full driving license.

JUDGMENT :

R. Kalaimathi, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award, dated 24.11.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, as regards the liability and on quantum.

2.The facts as set out in the claim petition are stated in brief:

On 17.12.2017 at about 03.30 p.m., the claimant was riding a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-84-Y-3379 along Rajapalayam to Alangulam main road, in order to go to his residence, near Sankaramoorthipatti Angalamman Kovil, he turned to the right side after giving signal, in the same direction another two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-84-C-4935, came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit him from behind. Due to the said impact, he suffered fracture over thigh besides other injuries. He was taken to Rajapalayam Government Hospital and thereafter shifted to Rajapalayam Sakthibala Hospital and took treatment till 17.12.2008. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the first respondent vehicle, the accident occurred. Therefore, the first respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle and the second respondent, who is the insurer of the first respondent vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the claimant herein.

3.Per contra, it was stated in the counter that the petitioner is put to strict to proof his income and the manner in which the accident occurred. The rider of the first respondent two wheeler did not possess driving licence at the relevant point of time. As the policy condition is violated by the owner of the vehicle viz., the first respondent/the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

4.At trial, on the claimant's side, the claimant has been examined as P.W.1. 19 documents have been marked. On the respondent's side, two witnesses have been examined and 5 documents have been marked. Ex.C.2 is the learner license issued to the claimant.

5.As regards the non-possession of valid driving license by the claimant, one Gnaneswaran, who is the staff of Regional Transport Office, has been examined as R.W.1. It is his evidence that on 23.11.2008, the learner license was issued to Muthukrishnan, S/o.Pitchamani, and thereafter, no license was issued to him and the learner license issued to the said Muthukrishnan is marked as Ex.C.2. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that though the said Muthukrishnan was in possession of the learner license, that cannot be considered as a valid driving license and thereby, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6.As regards the liability, the Tribunal held that as per the evidence of R.W.1, since the said Muthukrishnan was in possession of learner license, it cannot be considered as a invalid one and concluded that the second respondent, Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability to pay compensation.

7.As regards the quantum, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month and for three months, the loss of income was calculated at Rs.30,000/-. As per the disability assessed by the Medical Board, for one percent Rs.5,000/- based on the fracture and injuries suffered by the claimant was calculated and a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- was granted by the Tribunal for partial permanent disability. For pain and sufferings, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was granted. For transportation charges and for extra nourishment, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was granted under each head. For medical bills, an amount of Rs. 1,09,563/- was granted and for atten