Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Shyam Singh Son Of Shri Puran Chand on 1 July, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.2531 of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2531 of 1998
Date of Decision.01.07.2010
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, through Shri Anil
Chawla, Law Officer, Regional Office, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A,
Chandigarh duly constituted attorney
........Appellant
Versus
Shyam Singh son of Shri Puran Chand, resident of village and post
office Dangdheri, Tehsil and District Ambala and others
...Respondents
Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The appeal by the insurance company is on its liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had only a learner's licence and that it is not a licence in the eye of law. Learned counsel refers to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mandar Madav Thambe and others 1996 ACJ 253, which is to the effect that a person holding a learner's licence would not be regarded as duly licensed. This case was come for further discussion in several subsequent decisions and in particular in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 (see para 94 of the judgment at page 301). The Hon'ble Supreme has distinguished the FAO No.2531 of 1998 -2- judgment in Mandar Madav Thambe's case (supra) and has held that it could not be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle could not be driven by a person holding learner's licence, the same would run counter to Section 149(2) and therefore, cannot be taken as a defence by the insurance company. In view of the law laid down by a Three Member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court distinguishing its earlier judgment, the reliance on the judgment in Mandar Madav Thambe's case (supra) holds no weight.
2. The appeal is without merit and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 01, 2010 Pankaj*