PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.P.Goyal and S.S.Sodhi JJ.
Gurmukh Singh
Versus
Ajmer Kaur
First Appeal From Order No. 390 of 1979,
Decided On : DECEMBER 2, 1985
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - DRIVER HOLDING LEARNERS LICENCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 96(2)(B)(II) - PERSON DULY LICENSED - MEANING.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the liability of an insurance company to indemnify the owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident while being driven by a person holding a learner's license.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a person holding a learner's license is a person duly licensed to drive within the meaning of Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, the insurance company is not absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
Issues: Whether a person holding a learner's license is a person duly licensed to drive within the meaning of Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the phrase "duly licensed" in Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act to mean that a person is authorized to drive by the competent authority. Since a person holding a learner's license is authorized to drive in public places under a temporary permit, they are considered duly licensed to drive.
Final Decision: The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that the insurance company is not absolved of its liability merely because the driver of the offending motor vehicle at the time of the accident held a learner's license only.
S.P.Goyal, J.
1. This case has been put up before us on a reference by the learned Single Judge to determine the controversy regarding the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of a motor vehicle where it was driven by a person holding learners licence when involved in the accident.
2. In Insurance Company is fixed with the liability under section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for Short, the Act) to pay to the person entitled the sum assured payable thereunder and to avoid this liability on the defences enumerated in sub-section (2) are only open to it. One of the defences provided in clause (ii) of sub-section (2)(b) is that the motor vehicle was being driven by a person who was specifically denied this right by the Insurance Company or by a person who was not duly Licensed etc. etc. The contention raised by the Insurance Company was that a person holding learners licence cannot be said to be a duly licensed person within the meaning of the said clause and as such the Insurance Company would not be liable to indemnify the owner of any claim decreed against him. Elaborating his argument, Mr. L.M. Suri, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, argued that in the rules framed only a permit is granted to a person who wants to learn driving and the rules do not talk of issuance of any learners licence. The use of the word "permit" instead of "licence" which authorises the person intending to learn driving to drive in any public place makes intention of the Legislature clear that a permit holder would not be a person duly licensed to drive within the meaning of the clause referred to above. Support for this contention was sought from the following observations of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ambujan v. Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co., 1981 A.C.J. 175.
"Under the chapter on licensing of drivers of motor vehicles, an embargo is created by statute prohibiting persons from driving in a public place without holding an effective driving licence. Obviously effective driving licence cannot be an equation for a learners licence, which is only granted to a person learning driving and which by itself cannot vest him with a right independently to negotiate a motor vehicle on the strength of it. The intention of the legislature is made more clear in section 5 which speaks of the responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of sections 3 and 4."
3. A persual of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act would show that the State Government is authorised to prescribe conditions subject to which sub-section (1) would not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving of a motor vehicle. It is under this provision that the conditions have been laid down by the State Government and a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle is issued a permit commonly known as learners licence. If a person receiving instructions in driving holds a valid permit issued by the Prescribed authority the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 do not apply to him and he is entitled to drive in any public place in spite of the fact that he does not hold an effective driving licence. Obviously the provisions of Section 5 also would not be violated by a owner who allows such a person to drive his vehicle in any public place. As the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 were neither noticed nor discussed, we find ourselves unable to subscribe to the view expressed by the Bench regarding the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner where he allows a person to drive a vehicle in a public place holding only learners licence.
4. There is yet a more weighty reason to dissent from the above-noted view of the Madras High Court. In clause (ii) sub-section (2)(b) of Section 96 which enumerates the defences open to the Insurance Company, the words used are not "an effective driving licence" as in section 3(1) and, instead, are "driving by any person who is not duly
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.