Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1863, 2534 & 2556 of 2017

15. Sri K.M.R. Bala Prasad, appearing on behalf of both the respondents 1 and 2, addressed his arguments in MACMA No.2534 of 2017 contending that the 1st respondent was having LLR driving licence as granted under Ex.X.8, which is effective driving licence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. He would contend that both driving licence and also LLR are effective licences within the meaning of Section 3 and there are no conditions attached to make the LLR an effective driving licence. Even the proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules"), dealing with the instructions to be complied with did not place any condition or restriction on the holder of LLR to carry any other person on the motorcycle and in support of the same, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rendered in Senior Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotiba Appaji Shigate1. In view of the same, it is contended that the finding of the Tribunal that holding LLR licence while driving motorcycle does not amount to having valid driving licence within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Act is erroneous and perverse. He also contended that holding a learner's licence as issued under the provisions of the Act shall also be an effective driving licence within the meaning of Judgment, dt.21.08.2019, in Misc. First Appeal No.20655/2011 (MV) of the Karnataka High Court.

(2004) 3 SCC 297 RNT, J. & CGR, J.

M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1863, 2534 & 2556 of 2017

18. Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, representing Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the insurance company, vehemently contends that the mere holding of LLR would not amount to an effective driving licence within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Act and in as much as the 1st respondent had only LLR at the relevant point of time and such LLR being conditional in terms of Section 3(2) r/w. Rule 3(1) proviso which excludes Section 3(1) of the Act by providing that the LLR holder be accompanied by an instructor having valid driving licence. He further urges that Rule 3(b) mandates that any person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with effective learner's licence is mandated to be accompanied by instructor holding an effective driving licence and that proviso thereto debars the person receiving instructions to carry any other person other than the instructor referred to in sub-clause (b). By referring to Rule 141, which deals with certificate of insurance r/w. Form-51, he contends that clause (9) thereof clearly specifies the persons who are entitled to drive non-transport vehicle, which mandates that person holding effective learner's licence has also been permitted to drive the vehicle, however, the requirement of Rule 3 has to be strictly complied with. In the present case, the evidence of RW.3, who claimed to be the pillion rider, was disbelieved by the Tribunal, the RNT, J. & CGR, J.

M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1863, 2534 & 2556 of 2017 condition prescribed under the grant of LLR being not satisfied, thereby, the 1st respondent did not have any valid driving licence at the time of accident for invoking the liability under the insurance policy. By referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh4, in particular, paras 93 and 94, he contended that LLR is always subject to conditions mentioned in the licence, though the person holding learner's licence is entitled to drive the vehicle, the same is circumscribed by the conditions stipulated therein and the learner's licence granted under the Rules are subjected by conditions attached in terms of the said Rule. Therefore, in view of the prescription of condition in rule 3(1)(b) that the learner is necessarily required to accompany with instructor having valid driving licence, any violation of the same clearly amounts to violation of conditions of policy and thereby in the eventuality of accident, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. He further contended that the 1st respondent has taken stand that on the date of alleged accident, he was accompanied by pillion rider viz., Bojja Satyanarayana, who had valid driving licence, and even the said Bojja Satyanarayana, examined as RW.4, stated that he travelled as pillion rider, however, the very same Bojja Satyanarayana has given evidence in criminal proceedings that he did not know the 1st respondent and anything RNT, J. & CGR, J.

47. As is evident that the 1st respondent, who drove the motorcycle, had only LLR, though an effective driving licence at the time of accident, but since the condition circumscribed for LLR holder in terms of Section 3(2) r/w rule 3(1)(b) was not satisfied, the same clearly amounted to violation of statutory as well as terms of the insurance policy. Even if it is found that, the driver of motor vehicle committed breach of policy conditions, in view of the principles enunciated in Swaran Singh's case4, by applying the principle of pay and recover, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third party and later recover the same from the insured. (2007) 3 SCC 700 (2018) 9 SCC 650 RNT, J. & CGR, J.