Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15191
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
C.M. POONACHA, J
SRI. BABU S/O SEENAPPA – Appellant
Versus
NARAYANA S/O RAMAPPA – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1554 OF 2017 (MV-I)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt. Bojamman A.M, Sri Shivareddy K.N
For the Respondents: Sri Ramesh Kumar, Sri P.B. Raju
A Learner’s Licence is valid for driving an insured vehicle; insurers cannot deny liability based on the licence type.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 3(1) - Liability of insurer - The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 82,997/- exonerating the insurer, but the appeal contended the driver had a valid Learner’s Licence at the time of the accident. The Court held that a Learner’s Licence is valid, and the insurer is liable for compensation. (Paras 12, 17, 18)
(B) Appeal - Scope of review - The appellate court can interfere with the findings of the lower court if they are erroneous or unjustifiable. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, the owner of the vehicle, contested the Tribunal's finding that exonerated the insurer from liability despite the driver holding a Learner’s Licence. The appeal was filed after the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant.
Findings of Court:
The insurer was held liable to pay the compensation awarded, modifying the Tribunal's decision.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's exoneration of the insurer was justified given the driver held a Learner’s Licence?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a Learner’s Licence is valid for driving an insured vehicle, and the insurer cannot deny liability based on the type of licence held.
Result: The appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Tribunal's order to hold the insurer liable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tribunal's liability finding (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention on learner's licence validity (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. consideration of additional documents (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. validity of learner's licence (Para 12 , 13 , 17) |
| 5. court's decision on insurer's liability (Para 18 , 19) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 18.11.2016 passed in MVC No.593/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’] wherein the Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the offending vehicle.
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by respondent No.1/claimant arraying the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `82,997/- with interest at 8% p.a. However, the Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the vehicle, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Tribunal and exonerated the insurer from liability to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle.
3. Along with the above appeal, IA.No.2/2017 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] is filed to permit the appellant to produce the copy of the extract of the Learner’s Licence of the driver of the vehicle, which discloses that the driver had a valid learner’s licence from 25.1.2014 to 24.7.2014.
4. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Smt.Bojamma A.M appearing along with learned counsel Sri Shivareddy K.N, for the appellant, learned counsel Sri Ramesh Kumar, for respondent No.1/claimant and learned counsel Sri P.B.Raju, for respondent No.2/insurer.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/owner that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the vehicle had a Learner’s Licence and hence, he was duly licenced to drive the insured vehicle. Hence, it is contended that the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurer is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer justifies the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that the driver holding a Learner’s Licence is required to be accompanied by a person, who holds a valid Driving Licence as contemplated under Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1989’]
7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record has been perused including the records of the Tribunal. The questions that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether IA.No.2/2017 filed for production of additional documents is required to be allowed?
ii. Whether the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the owner of the insured vehicle to pay the compensation awarded is liable to be interfered with?
Re.question No.(i):
8. The essential factual matrix is undisputed, inasmuch as the driver of the vehicle had obtained a driving licence (Ex.R1), which was issued on 23.6.2014 and valid till 20.7.2020. The date of accident is 6.5.2014. The Tribunal, noticing the same has also noticed that the official from the office of the Regional Transport Officer has been examined as RW.2, who has produced the driving licence extract as per Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
9. It is pertinent to note here that along with IA.No.2/2017 filed in the present appeal, an extract of the Learner’s Licence of the driver of the insured vehicle has also been produced, wherein it is forthcoming that the driver had Learner’s Licence to drive the insured vehicle, which is an Autorickshaw from 25.1.2014 to 24.7.2014. It is deposed in the affidavit accompanying the application filed by the appellant, who was the owner-cum-driver, that he had a valid Learner’s Lience, which is annexed along with the application. It is fu
