United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dhapubai and Others

Shambhoo Singh, J.—This appeal is directed by the non-applicant Insurance Company against the award dated 13.2.1997 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratlam, in Claim Case No. 124/1995.

The claimants''/respondents'' case was that on 27.5.1995 the deceased Laxman, husband of the non-applicant No. 1 and father of non-applicant No. 2 was going on his motor-cycle M.P. 24-D 2616 along with Gordharm. Near village Sejavda, respondent No. 4 came from opposite direction driving Jeep No. G. 8403, owned by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and insured with the appellant, in rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the motor cycle as a result of which Laxman died on the spot. The deceased was farmer. The claimants filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The respondents resisted the claim. It was averred that the owner and Insurance Company of the motor-cycle were necessary parties. The appellant/non-applicant inter alia averred that the respondent No. 5 was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal on appreciation of held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the respondent No. 4 and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the claim application against the respondents. The non-applicant Insurance Company felt aggrieved by this award and preferred this appeal.

Mr. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed error in directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount. He submitted that on the date of accident, the respondent No. 5, the driver, was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the owner committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation. He put reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others, On the other hand Mr. B.L. Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 supported the impugned, award and submitted that the respondent-driver had learning licence on the date of the accident.

We considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

No doubt, on the date of the accident, the respondent No. 5, the driver, was having learner''s licence but learner''s licence is hot a valid and effective driving licence. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. (supra), clearly held that learner''s licence is not a driving licence. Section 7 of the Act, 1939 provides that no driving licence shall be issued to any person unless he passes, to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority, the test of competence to drive as specified in Third Schedule. Their Lordships observed as under:

It is clear, therefore, that a valid driving licence as contemplated by the said Act would be one which is issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, after a driving test has been held. A person who holds only a learner''s licence is one who has not taken the driving test successfully.

Their Lordships further observed:

In other words a person would be regarded as being duly licensed only if he has obtained a licence under Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act and a person who has obtained a temporary licence which enables him to learn driving, cannot be regarded as having been duly licensed.

It is true that in the case before the Supreme Court the learner''s licence had elapsed much earlier to the date of accident and there was also an endorsement in the insurance policy whereby such person who had learner''s licence, was prohibited from driving the vehicle. While in the case on hand, the respondent No. 5 had effective learning licence on the date of accident and in the insurance policy there is no exclusion clause whereby the holder of the learner''s licence was excluded from driving the vehicle, but as their Lordships of the Supreme Court held, learner''s licence is issued without passing the test as provided u/s 7 of the Act, therefore, the learner''s licence is not a valid licence. In Section 2(10), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the definition of ''driving licence'' is given as below:

''Driving licence'' means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.

In old Act in Section 2/57 in definition of ''driving licence'' of learner''s licence, was not excluded. While it has been specifically excluded in new Act in Section 2(10). Now learner''s licence is not a driving licence.

As the respondent No. 5, the driver of the jeep was not having any effective and valid driving licence, he was not duly licensed, the owner committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. In our opinion, the learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the appellant liable to pay compensation, The appellant Insurance Company cannot challenge the compensation amount in view of Section 149 of the Act.

In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified and it is directed that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 with interest. No order as to costs.