ORDER

% 21.03.2024

1. This hearing is being conducted through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 11423/2024 (Ex.)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 11422/2024 (Delay of 126 days in filing the present appeal) and CM APPL. 11424/2024 (Delay of 20 days in re-filing the present appeal)

4. There is a delay of 126 days in filing the present appeal as also delay of 20 days in re-filing the present appeal.

5. For the reasons stated in both the applications, both applications are allowed and the delay of 126 days in filing the present appeal and the delay of 20 days in re-filing the present appeal are condoned.

6. Both applications stand disposed of.

MAC.APP. 120/2024 and CM APPL. 11421/2024 (Stay)

7. The appellant/Insurance Company is assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant is present. Notice is accepted on behalf of respondent No.1/claimant.

15. However, advance notice has been served upon respondents No.2 and 3, who are driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle, but none has appeared on behalf of them. Let fresh notice of the present appeal be issued to the respondents No.2 and 3, who are the driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle, by all permissible modes including via approved courier as well.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has urged that evidently the driver Vijay was having a learner’s driving licence only and he was plying the offending vehicle having as many as 9-10 passengers, some of who got injured and others who succumbed to the injuries and died. The attention of this Court is invited to observations contained in paragraphs (56) to (59) of the impugned judgment, which has dealt with the issue as to whether there was any breach of any fundamental conditions of the policy of the insurance. It would be expedient to reproduce the observations made by learned Tribunal in paragraph (57) and (58) of the impugned judgement which read as under:-

“57. As is quite evident from the perusal of driving licence (which is part of DAR) that the same was Learner's licence having validity from 14.06.2016 to 13.12.2016. Section 3 of M.V. Act clearly stipulates that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he or she holds an effective Driving Licence authorizing him or her to drive the vehicle. Section 8(1) of the same Act further provides that any person who is not disqualified u/s. 4 for driving a motor vehicle and is also not disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may, subject to the provision of Section 7 apply for issuance of Learner's Licence to him/her. Section 8(7) of the Act empowers the Central Government to frame the rules in order to regulate the issuance of Learner's Licence. In exercise of power conferred by said provision, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (as amended upto date) have been enacted by the Central Government. Rule 3(1)(b) clearly mandates that the person holding Learner's Licence should be accompanied by an Instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor has to be sitting in such a position so as to control or to stop the vehicle.

58. Now turning back to the facts of the present case. The respondent no. 3 has examined R3W1 who himself admitted that respondent no. 1 was having learner's licence at the time of accident. It is apparent on record that the Sh. Ujjwal (deceased) had made an online booking with respondent no. 2 and at the time of booking, he had uploaded his valid and effective driving licence in the form. In the present case, even if I assume that respondent no. 1 was not having valid and effective permanent driving licence, it can not be said that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy of offending vehicle. Before coming to any