Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmukh Singh And Anr. vs Ajmer Kaur And Ors. on 17 April, 1986
Equivalent citations: II(1986)ACC488, [1990]68COMPCAS179(P&H)
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The controversy here is with regard to the value and status of a learner's licence in the context of the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident. The issue raised here being whether the holder of a learner's licence was not one "duly authorised" to drive it. In other words, does the insurance company stand absolved from liability if the driver of the offending motor vehicle held merely a learner's driving licence ?
2. There is a conflict of judicial opinion on this matter. A Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Chanchalben v. Shailesh Kumar Pandu-rao Thakore [1974] ACJ 393, held that the expression "The person driving holds a licence to drive the motor cycle" included also a person holding merely a learner's driving licence. A contrary view was taken by the High Court of Madras in Ambujam v. Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. [1981] ACJ 175, where it was held that an effective driving licence could not be equated with a mere learner's licence which is granted to a person learning driving and which by itself could not vest him with a right independently to drive a motor vehicle on the strength of it.
3. The matter relating to the liability of the insurance company in an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a person holding a learner's licence is of undoubted public importance, besides there being contrary views expressed with regard to it, as evidenced by the two authori-
ties cited above. In this view of the matter, the papers of this case be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to examine and adjudicate upon the issue raised.
S.P. Goyal, J.
4. This case has been put up before us on a reference by the learned single judge to determine the controversy regarding the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner of a motor vehicle where it was driven by a person holding a learner's licence when involved in the accident.
5. The insurance company is fixed with the liability under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, "the Act") to pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder and in order to avoid this liability, the defences enumerated in Sub-section (2) only are open to it. One of the defences provided in Clause (ii) of Sub-section (2)(b) is that the motor vehicle was being driven by a person who was specifically denied this right by the insurance company or by a person who was not duly licensed, etc., etc. The contention raised by the insurance company was that a person holding a learner's licence cannot be said to be a duly licensed person within the meaning of the said clause and as such the insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the owner for any claim decreed against him. Elaborating his argument, Mr. L.M. Suri, learned counsel for the insurance company, argued that in the rules framed, only a permit is granted to a person who wants to learn driving and the rules do not talk of issuance of any learner's licence. The use of the word, "permit" instead of "licence" which authorises the person intending to learn driving to drive in any public place makes the intention of the Legislature clear that a permit-holder would not be a person duly licensed to drive within the meaning of the clause referred to above. Support for this contention was sought from the following observations of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ambujam v. Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. [1980] 50 Comp Cas 404, 406 ; [1981] ACJ 175, 177 :
"Under the Chapter on licensing of drivers of motor vehicles, an embargo is created by statute prohibiting persons from driving in a public place without holding an effective driving licence. Obviously, an effective driving licence cannot be an equation for a learner's licence, which is only granted to a person learning driving and which by itself cannot vest him with a right independently to negotiate a motor vehicle on the strength of it. The intention of the Legislature is made more clear in Section 5 which speaks of the responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of Sections 3 and 4."
6. A perusal of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act would show that the State Government is authorised to prescribe conditions subject to which Sub-section (1) would not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle. It is under this provision that the conditions have been laid down by the State Government and a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle is issued a permit commonly known as a learner's licence. If a person receiving instructions in driving holds a valid permit issued by the prescribed authority, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 do not apply to him and he is entitled to drive in any public place in spite of the fact that he does not hold an effective driving licence. Obviously, the provisions of Section 5 also would not be violated by an owner who allows such a person to drive his vehicle in any public place. As the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 were neither noticed nor discussed, we find ourselves unable to subscribe to the view expressed by the Bench regarding the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner where he allows a person to drive a vehicle in a public place holding only a learner's licence.
7. There is yet a more weighty reason to dissent from the above-mentioned view of the Madras High Court. In Clause (ii) of Sub-section 2(b) of Section 96 which enumerates the defences open to the insurance company, the words used are not "an effective driving licence" as in Section 3(1) but instead, "driving by any person who is not duly licensed". If the intention of the Legislature was to exonerate the insurance company if the driver of the motor vehicle did not possess a regular driving licence, it would have used the same words as in Section 3(1). On the contrary, the word "licence" has been used as a verb and not as a noun. The defences under the said clause would be open to the insurance company only if the person driving the motor vehicle is not duly licensed and not if he does not hold an effective driving licence. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the words "duly licensed" is that the concerned person is'authorised to drive by the competent authority. Obviously, a person who is authorised by the competent authority to drive in a public place under a temporary permit meant for persons intending to learn driving would be a person duly licensed to drive in a public place.
8. The said clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Chanchalben v. Shailesh Kumar Pandurao Thakore [1974] ACJ 393 and after comparing the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, of Great Britain, whose provisions are in pari materia with the present Act and the English decisions rendered thereunder, it was held that a person holding a learner's licence would be a duly licensed driver within the meaning of Section 96(2)(b)(ii).
9. In a recent decision, P.D. Desai C. J. in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Ram [1985] ACJ 481 ; [1987] 61 Comp Cas 302, considered the matter at length and on similar reasons concluded that a motorcyclist holding a learner's driving licence was covered by the expression "duly licensed" within the meaning of the said clause. We, therefore, fully endorse, the view expressed in Chanchalben's case [1974] ACJ 393 and hold that a person holding a learner's licence would be a person duly licensed to drive within the meaning of Section 96(2)(b)(ii).
10. Learned counsel for the insurance company then contended that in the insurance policy, it has been specifically stated that a person holding a learner's licence would not be entitled to drive the vehicle. As such a condition would run counter to the provisions of Section 96(2), it would not be enforceable nor on its basis would it be possible for the insurance company to avoid its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and it is held that the insurance company shall not be absolved of its liability merely because the driver of the offending motor vehicle at the time of the accident held a learner's licence only. This case would now go back to the learned single judge for disposal on merits.
S.S. Sodhi, J.
11. Did Baldev Singh, the driver of the offending motor cycle PUR 3077 hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, thereby rendering the insurance company liable for the compensation awarded ? Herein lies the controversy in appeal.
12. On July 7, 1975, at about 8 p.m., Baldev Singh by his rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle PUR 3077 caused injuries to Balwant Singh, as a result of which he later died and also to Raj Kaur and Manwinderjit Singh, which were, however, simple in nature. This happened on the main road in Sector 23.
13. The Tribunal, after holding Baldev Singh guilty of negligence, awarded Rs. 38,400 as compensation to the widow and children of Balwant Singh deceased and Rs. 1,000 each to Raj Kaur and Manwinderjit Singh for the injuries suffered by them.
14. The matter with regard to the liability of the insurance company hinges upon the learner's licence, exhibit R-1, in favour of Baldev Singh who had caused this accident. It deserves mention at the very outset that this licence purports to have been issued on the very day of the accident, namely, July 7, 1975. Grave doubts with regard to its genuineness as also the date of issue thereof were expressed by Mr. L.M. Suri appearing for the respondent-insurance company. A reference to the learner's driving permit book, which contains the carbon copies of the learner's licences issued, would show that the carbon copy in respect of the learner's licence, exhibit R-1, is at S. No. 1048. This is exhibit R-X. It will be seen that it can very clearly be made out that this paper was subsequently pasted in this book. The licensing clerk, Gurmukh Singh, when he appeared in the witness box, could give no explanation for this. This is the only permit in the book which has been so pasted. Further, at the bottom of the permits in this book is the number of the Government Press, Chandigarh. This number being "8538 DM (UTC)-Govt. Press, Chd.". Wherever this number has occurred from S. Nos. 1018 to 1066, the first figure "8" has been printed a little lower than the other numbers "538". In exhibit R-X, at S. No. 1048, the entire number "8538" is in a straight line. In other words, its printing is quite different and distinct from that on the other forms leading to the irresistible conclusion, coupled with this form being the only one pasted in this book, that this form was torn out from some other permit book and pasted here.
15. Further, it will be seen that exhibit R-X purports to be a carbon copy of the learner's licence, exhibit R-1. In exhibit R-1, all the writing is on the margin, whereas in exhibit R-X all the writing cuts the lines. Not only this, the width of the relevant columns in exhibits R-1 and R-X does not match. Such being the state of the evidence on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the licence, exhibit R-1, was subsequently procured with a view to avoid liability both upon the owner and the driver of the offending motor cycle. This being so, there is clearly no warrant fpr fastening any liability upon the insurance company.
16. This appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.