IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL ON THE 1^st OF NOVEMBER, 2022 MISC. APPEAL No. 3408 of 2011 BETWEEN:-

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH MANAGER DISTT. BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. )

AND

1. SMT. ASHA BAI W/O LATE SHRI DILIP, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WARD NO. 15 SATPAYRI TEH. NEPANAGAR DISTT. BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DIPALI D/O DILIP, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. ASHABAI WARD NO. 15, SATPAYRI, TEH. NEPANAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. RUPALI D/O DILIP, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. ASHABAI WARD NO. 15, SATPAYRI, TEH. NEPANAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. BHARTI D/O DILIP, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. ASHABAI WARD NO. 15, SATPAYRI, TEH. NEPANAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. CHETAN S/O DILIP, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. ASHABAI WARD NO. 15, SATPAYRI, TEH. NEPANAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. KESHARBAI W/O LATE OMKAR, AGED ABOUT Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH

80 YEARS, WARD NO. 15, SATPAYRI, TEH.

NEPANAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. JITENDRA S/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, PALASUR, TEH. NEPANAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

8. RAJU S/O KRISHNA WALKE PALASUR, TEH.

NEPANAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1. )

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This appeal is filed by Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 12/05/2011 passed by Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burhanpur in Claim Case Number 97/2010 on single ground that admittedly that the motorcycle was driven by Jeetu @ Jitendra, who has been examined as (NAW-1). He has admitted in para 3 that at the time of accident, he was driving the motorcycle alone. In para 4, he has admitted that Exhibit D/1 is the photocopy of his license and at the time of accident, he was having learning license, which was having validity from 25/06/2010 to 24/12/2010.

Shri Jain submits that as per the policy Exhibit A/9 there is specific stipulation that " any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of all accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's license may Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989."

Rule 3 (1)(b) provides that such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving license to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle.

Admittedly since this requirement of learners driving license as per the rules and as per the stipulation of the policy was admittedly not followed, Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated and compensation is to be paid by driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

Nobody is appearing for the owner and driver of the vehicle to opposed this proposition. Even otherwise, law is well settled as is evident from the Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the terms of the policy.

Since there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in the following terms:-

"Insurance Company shall satisfy the award and will be entitled to recover the awarded amount alongwith interest from the owner and driver of th offending vehicle."

Let a record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH (VIVEK AGARWAL)

JUDGE skt Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH