Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 754
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
N.K.Mody, J.
Shiv Kumar Soni - Appellant
Versus
Ku.Rita Kushwaha and Another - Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 433-2010 & From the Judgment and Award dated 28-10-2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna in C.C. No. 440-2008.
Decided On : 04-02-2013
Appearances :Mr. P.N. Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant
Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company.
A learner's licence is considered a valid licence, and the insurance company is liable for compensation in case of a motor accident.
Headnote:
learner's licence - Motor Accident - Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, Rule 3 - Summary: The court discussed the validity of a learner's licence and the liability of the insurance company. It referred to previous cases and legal provisions to establish that a learner's licence is considered a valid licence, and the insurance company is liable. The court allowed the appeal and quashed the direction given by the tribunal regarding pay and recover to respondent No. 2.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent No. 1 sustained injury in a motor accident caused by the appellant's rash and negligent driving. The claim petition was allowed, and compensation was awarded. The appellant filed an appeal, disputing the liability of respondent No. 2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learner's licence held by the appellant was valid, and the insurance company was liable for the compensation.
Issues: Validity of learner's licence, liability of insurance company, and the tribunal's decision regarding pay and recover to respondent No. 2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions and previous cases to establish that a learner's licence is considered a valid licence, and the insurance company is liable.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the direction given by the tribunal regarding pay and recover to respondent No. 2 was quashed.
Being aggrieved by the award dated 28-10-09 passed by the MACT, Satna in Claim Case No. 440/2008 whereby the claim petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident and respondent No. 2 was exonerated, present appeal has been filed.
2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 sustained injury in a motor accident which was caused on 18-6-08 by rash and negligent driving of the appellant. It was alleged that the offending vehicle which was driven by appellant was insured with respondent No. 2. It is pleaded that the claim petition be allowed and appellant and respondent No. 2 be directed to pay compensation to respondent No. 1. After holding an enquiry, a compensation of Rs. 25.000/- was awarded and respondent No. 2 was exonerated on account that the appellant was possessing learner's licence and was not fulfilling the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act against which the appeal has been filed by the appellant.
Undisputedly, the date of occurrence is 18-6-08 and the learner's licence which the appellant was possessing was valid w.e.f. 18-6-08 to 17-12-08. No evidence was adduced by the respondent No. 2 to that effect that no licensed driver was sitting on the scooter to instruct the appellant who was possessing learner's licence therefore, the learned Tribunal has not accepted the liability of respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Gopal Thakur and another Vs. Urmila Mahant and others, 2008 ACJ 238, wherein the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Insurance Company has failed to lead evidence to the effect that any other person having valid driving licence was not sitting on the scooter and instructing the driver at the time of accident therefore, the driver who was possessing learner's licence was competent and authorised to drive the scooter and Insurance Company is liable. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Annul Automobiles Vs. Ashish Kumar Shukla and others, 2009 ACJ 1184, wherein the driver possessing learner's licence was driving motor cycle without displaying "L-Board" and was not accompanied by a duly licensed person thereby committing breach of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the owner failed to lead evidence to prove that due diligence and care had been exercised while giving motor cycle. Chhattisgarh High Court held that the owner committed breach of terms and conditions of policy and Tribunal was justified in directing the Insurance Company to pay first and then recover from owner. Thus, it was prayed that the findings in respect of the respondent No. 2 be set aside.
4. Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the law laid down in the case of Gopal Thakur (supra), is not applicable in this case because in the instant case respondent No. 2 has examined two witnesses who have specifically stated the Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 were not followed. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating respondent No. 2 and prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
5. Chapter II of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 deals with the licence of drivers of motor vehicles. Rule 3 deals with the learner's licence which reads as under :-
"3. General.- The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competent to drive, so long as-
(a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle;
(b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and
(c) there is painted, in the front and the rear of the
