Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J@mdashAppellant-insurer has questioned the award, dated 08.01.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (H.P.) (for short "the Tribunal") in M ACT. Petition No. 53-G/II/2005, titled as Smt. Kamla Devi and others versus Ex. Capt. Gian Chand and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its deposition came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, against the respondents and the appellant-insurer was to satisfy the award (for short "the impugned award").
2. The claimants, the driver and the owner-insured have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.
3. Appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds, details of which have been given in para 1 of the appeal.
4. The questions to be determined in this appeal are:
"(i) Whether the impugned award is bad in law?
(ii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence?
(iii) Whether the owner-insured has committed any willful breach in terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") read with the terms and the conditions of the insurance policy?
(iv) Whether the amount awarded is excessive?"
5. In order to determine the said questions, it is necessary to give brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the appeal in hand.
6. Deceased-Mast Ram Rana became the victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by driver, namely Shri Anurag Rana, while driving offending vehicle, motor cycle, bearing registration No. HP-36-8184, rashly and negligently on 11.11.2004, at about 11.00 A.M. at Adde-Di-Hattian, hit the deceased, who sustained injuries, was taken to Community Health Center, Jawalamukhi, was referred to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, was taken to Hoshiarpur wherefrom was referred to Jallandhar (Punjab), where he remained admitted in Intensive Care Unit in Vasal Hospital Private Limited, 37, Kapurthala, Chowk, Jallandhar, and succumbed to injuries at about 10.45 P.M.
7. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of the accident, was proprietor of Rana Rolling Shutter Industries and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Further averred that the claimants have spent Rs. 41,000/- as medical expenses and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.
8. The respondents in the claim petition, i.e. the owner-insured, the driver and the insurer, have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.
9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:
"1. Whether on 11.11.2004 the respondent No. 2 was driving the motor cycle No. HP-36-8184 rashly and negligently and hit Sh. Mast Ram who sustained injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries, as alleged? OPP
2. If Issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OP Parties
3. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-2 and 3
4. Whether the vehicle in question was not insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of alleged accident? OPR-1 and 3
5. Relief."
10. Parties led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,36,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its deposition in favour of the claimants and the insurer came to be saddled with liability.
Issue No. 1:
11. The findings on issue No. 1 are not in dispute. However, I have gone through the record and scanned the evidence and am of the considered view that the claimants have proved by leading evidence, oral as well as documentary, that on 11.11.2004, driver-Anurag Rana had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, hit the deceased, who sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld.
12. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 and 4.
Issue No. 3:
13. Appellant-insurer had to discharge the onus to prove issue No. 3, which it has failed to do so, for the simple reason that it has not led any evidence. Thus, issue No. 3 was to be decided in favour of the claimants, driver and the owner-insured and against the insurer.
14. However, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a learner''s licence and was not competent to drive the same. The said fact has been discussed by the Tribunal in para 14 of the impugned award and the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the driver was having learner''s licence and was competent to drive the offending vehicle, i.e. the motor cycle, in terms of the driving licence, Ext. RW-1/A.
15. Section 2(19) of the MV Act defines learner''s licence. It provides that a person who is holding a learner''s licence is authorized to drive a light motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. It is apt to reproduce Section 2(19) of the Act herein:
"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;"
16. While going through the said definition, one comes to an escapable conclusion that a person who is having a learner''s licence is competent to drive the motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description, for which he has been given the licence.
17. A bare perusal of the driving licence Ext. RW-1/A does disclose that the licence was valid and effective at the time of accident and the driver was competent to drive the motor cycle, i.e., the offending vehicle. It is not the case, either of the claimants or of the insurer, that the driver was not having a learner''s licence.
18. This Court has dealt with the issue in the cases titled as Anuj Sirkek versus Neelma Devi and Ors., being FAO No. 57 of 2014, decided on 19.12.2014 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Sh. Krishan Dev and others, being FAO No. 476 of 2007, decided on 22.05.2015.
19. It is profitable here to reproduce Section 10 of the MV Act, which reads as under:
"10. Form and contents of licences to drive.--(1) Every learner''s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(2) A learner''s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following cases, namely:--
(a) motor cycle without gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
(e) transport vehicle;
(i) road-roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description."
20. The mandate of Section 10 of the Act is that every learner is competent to drive the vehicle, description of which is contained in the driving licence, Ext. RW-1/A in the present case, mention of which is made hereinabove.
21. The issue as to whether a person, who is holding a learner''s licence, is competent to drive light motor vehicle, came up for consideration in a case titled
"88. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner''s licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14]. A learner''s licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that a vehicle when being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not duly licensed resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner''s licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner''s licence, the same would run counter to the provision of Section 149 (2) of the said Act.
89. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner''s licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for the restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner''s licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learner''s licences are granted under the rules farmed by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule making power. Conditions are attached to the learner''s licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner''s licence would, thus, also come within the purview of "duly licensed" as such a licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the rules farmed thereunder. It is now a well-settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of main enactment. It is also well-settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage.
90. Mandar Madhav Tambe''s case (supra), whereupon the learned counsel placed reliance, has no application to the fact of the matter. There existed an exclusion clause in the insurance policy wherein it was made clear that the Insurance Company, in the event of an accident, would be liable only if the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence or a permanent driving licence "other than a learner''s licence". The question as to whether such a clause would be valid or not did not arise for consideration before the Bench in the said case. The said decision was rendered in the peculiar fact situation obtaining therein. Therein it was stated that "a driving licence" as defined in the Act is different from a learner''s licence issued under Rule 16 of the Vehicles Rules, 1939 having regard to the factual matrix involved therein."
22. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld.
Issue No. 4:
23. It was for the appellant-insurer to prove that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. In one breath, the appellant-insurer has pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the owner-insured has committed a willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and in second breath, it has pleaded that the offending vehicle was not insured with it.
24. While going through the record, more particularly, the insurance policy, Ext. R-X, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurer and the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld.
Issue No. 2:
25. The claimants have proved that the age of the deceased was 55 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has discussed this issue in paras 17 to 20 of the impugned award. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and the claimants have lost the source of income/dependency to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month and applied the multiplier of ''7'' while keeping in view the age of the deceased.
26. Having said so, the amount awarded cannot be said to be excessive, though meager. However, the claimants have not questioned the same, is reluctantly upheld.
27. Having said so, all the four questions framed hereinabove are, accordingly, replied.
28. In view of the above, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
29. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification.
30. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal''s file.
