Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J@mdashSubject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award dated 1.2.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, for short "the Tribunal" in MAC Petition No. 4/2004 RBT 45/05/04, titled Trishla Devi versus Dinesh Kumar and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and owner/insured was saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award", for short.
2. Claimant, driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer from the liability? The answer is in negative for the following reasons.
3. The insurer has specifically taken the ground before the Tribunal that the owner has committed willful breach and the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and issues No. 3 and 4 came to be framed. It is apt to reproduce the issues framed by the Tribunal herein:
"(i) Whether deceased Harbansi Devi had died because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-19-A-3504 by respondent No. 1 at the relevant time as alleged? OPP.
(ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP
(iii) Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident in question. If so, its effect? OPR.
(iv) Whether the vehicle in question was being plied against the terms and conditions of the policy at the time of accident in question. If so, its effect? OPR.
(v) Relief."
4. It was for the insure to lead evidence to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence, has not led any evidence to prove issue No. 4. I wonder how the Tribunal has discharged the insurer from the liability. The Tribunal has made discussion in para 14 of the impugned award, which is without logic and has based his finding on conjectures.
5. Admittedly, the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, which is at page 147 of the record file. The offending vehicle was falling within the definition of "light Motor Vehicle" thus, the driver was competent to drive the said offending vehicle in terms of mandate of Sections 2(17)(19) and (21), read with Sections 3, 7 and 10(2)(e) of the Act. It is apt to reproduce all the referred Sections herein:
"Section 2(17). "heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;
2 (19). "learners 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;
2(21). "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 2 [7500] kilograms;
"Section 3. No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government."
Section (7) Where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by rules made in this behalf, exempt generally, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the rules, any class of persons from the provisions of Sub-section (3), or sub-section (5), or both.
(8) Any learners licence for driving a motor cycle in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, after such commencement, be deemed to be effective for driving a motor cycle with or without gear.
Section 10.(2)(e) transport vehicle;] (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description"
6. My this View is also fortified by this Judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case titled as
"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 provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act."
7. This Court in FAO NO. 125 of 2008 titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Amra Devi and others decided on 17th April, 2015 has laid down the same principles of law.
8. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal are set aside and insurer is saddled with the liability and has to satisfy the award.
9. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, if not already deposited, within six weeks from today in the Registry. On deposit, the entire amount be released to the claimant, through payees'' cheque account.
10. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant/insured shall be paid to the claimant as cost of the litigation, in addition to the amount of compensation.
11. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is allowed.
12. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.
