Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Janki Devi And Others on 23 July, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4191 of 2007
Date of decision:23.07.2010
United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant
versus
Smt. Janki Devi and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
----
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 liability of Insurance Company is sought to be excluded on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had only a learner's licence and hence there is no valid or effective licence in the eye of law.
The learned counsel for the insurer places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Mandar Madhav Tambe-(1996) 2 SCC 328; 1996 SCC (Cri)
307. On due consideration of law, with reference to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Swaran Singh-(2004) 3 SCC 297, "93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. (See Section 4(3), Sector 7(2), FAO No.4191 of 2007 -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 when a vehicle is 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.
94. 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 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 framed 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 framed 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 the main enactment. It is also a 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 FAO No.4191 of 2007 -3- be considered as surplusage.
95 Mandar Madhav Tambe's case, 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 Motor Vehicles Rules, 1939 having regard to the factual matrix involved therein.
96. The question which arises for consideration in these petitions did not arise there. Neither was the same argued at the Bar nor were the binding precedents considered. Mandar Madhav Tambe's case therefore, has no application to the facts of these cases nor creates any binding precedent. The view we have taken is in tune with the judgments rendered by different High Courts consistently. (See for example New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Latha Jayaraj-1998 ACJ 1318 (Ker.).
2. In the light of the law stated as above, the plea of the insurer regarding exclusion of liability is untenable and hence rejected. The appeal is consequently dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.07.2010 sanjeev