V.V. Somani vs I. Annapurna and Others

V.V.S. Rao, J.—The appeal is filed against the award dated 19.8.1998 in M.O.P. No. 103 of 1994 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

The appellant is owner of a scooter and was arrayed as third respondent in the O.P. The Tribunal passed award in favour of first respondent herein directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 39,200/-with interest at 12% per annum towards compensation to the first respondent for causing injuries in motor vehicle accident. The first respondent filed the O.P. alleging that she was working as Telegraphist and getting salary of Rs. 2,600/- per month. On the fateful day when she was going to home from office on her two-wheeler Luna, third respondent herein came on scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her Luna as a result of which she sustained bone fracture on her right leg and crush injury to her right feet besides multiple injuries to her left feet. She was hospitalised for eight months and she incurred expenditure for treatment. She filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant and the third respondent contested the claim. The Insurance Company, second respondent herein, also opposed the claim. The Insurance Company mainly opposed the O.P. on the ground that the third respondent who was driving the scooter at relevant time was not having valid driving licence and that the Insurance Company has to be exonerated from liability under the policy. The appellant and the third respondent denied involvement of scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 and also denied allegation that third respondent was not having valid licence. The Tribunal framed the following issues.

Whether the accident occurred on 25.9.1993 due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.AIV 4861 by its driver which resulted in sustainment of the injuries to the petitioner ?

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents?

To what relief ?

First respondent herein examined P.Ws.1 to 3, and marked Exs. A.1 to A.23. An Assistant in the office of the second respondent was examined as R.W. 1. The appellant examined himself as R.W.3 and third respondent as R.W.2. After considering evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 was involved in the accident and that third respondent was not having valid licence. The appellant herein being owner of the scooter is vicariously liable and accordingly passed award.

In this appeal, it is contended that the scooter of the appellant was not involved in the accident and that the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability merely on the ground that the third respondent was not having valid driving licence and that he was having only learner''s licence.

Learned Counsel for second respondent, Sri T. Mahender Rao placed reliance on evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.4 in support of the contention that the scooter involved in the accident was owned by the appellant himself. He further contended that admittedly the third respondent was having learner''s licence and therefore the third respondent was not having a valid driving licence as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act). In that view of the matter, he would urge that the Insurance Company is not liable. He placed reliance on New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others, , and a judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kesavam Ramamurthy, in support of the contention that when a person drives the vehicle with learner''s licence, the Insurance Company is not liable for such risk.

The two points that arise for consideration may be considered one after the other. First question that falls for consideration is as to identity of the scooter involved in the accident. It is no doubt true that in Ex.A.2 First Information Report given to Visakhapatnam I Town Police Station she stated that the scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 dashed against her moped. In her evidence in cross-examination she categorically stated that scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 dashed against her moped. This is corroborated by documentary evidence, in the shape of Ex.A.4 which is report of Motor Vehicles Inspector who submitted a report on 15.10.1993 after making detailed enquiry. Therefore, the submission that the scooter involved in the accident does not belong to the appellant is devoid of any merit and is accordingly rejected.

The third respondent herein was holder of learner''s licence bearing No. 9069 B7/96 dated 26.6.1993 which is valid up to 25.12.1993 which is marked as Ex.B.2. According to the conditions of learner''s licence issued under Rule 3-A and 13 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, this is subject to provisions of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is contended that learner''s licence is also valid driving licence. This submission cannot be accepted. Driving licence and learner''s driving licence were defined separately u/s 2(10) and 2(19) respectively and they read as under:

2(10). ''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.

2(19). ''Learner''s licence'' means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.

8, A plain reading of the above would show that learner''s licence specifically stands excluded from the definition of driving licence and therefore it does not include learner''s licence. Further, the word used for defining the terms is ''means''. It is well settled that when the definition starts with the words ''means'' it has to be given restrictive meaning. Learner''s licence authorising a person to drive motor vehicle cannot be equated with driving licence. Further, as per Ex.B.1 policy, it does not cover use of insured vehicle for hire or reward and it also mentions the persons or class of persons entitled to drive the vehicle. As per the policy insured and any other person who is having driving licence and who is not disqualified to drive the vehicle is deemed to hold effective driving licence. The person having learner''s licence under Sub-section (19) of Section 2 is disqualified by the very definition of driving licence as per Section 2(10). Therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to conclude that a person holding learner''s licence cannot be said to have effective driving licence and he must be held to be disqualified to drive the insured vehicle. Though the appellant and the third respondent as R.Ws.3 and 2 respectively denied that the third respondent was not driving the vehicle, after perusing the evidence, it is not possible to accept the contention that third respondent was not driving the vehicle. In Kesavan Ramamurthy''s case (supra) this Court considered similar question and held that learner''s licence holder is not covered by insurance policy and that holder of learner''s licence cannot be said to be a person having permanent licence mentioned in the insurance policy. The law may be taken as well-settled that if the vehicle is driven by a person holding learner''s licence contrary to the conditions of policy the insurer stands exonerated from its liability.

The Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.