Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Therefore, it is patent, that this accident had taken place, not by the negligent or rash driving of the LLR holder, by name Srinivasan, whereas this accident had occurred due to the negligent act or rash driving of the offending vehicle viz. KL B2264. Therefore, we cannot say the LLR holding driver Srinivasan, had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, or owner entrusting the vehicle to him, violated the conditions of the policy, as if the driver had driven the vehicle, without knowing how to drive the vehicle etc. Therefore, the legal heirs of the occupants of the car, have filed any claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, against the insurance company of the offending vehicle, that has nothing to do with this case, since this claim depends upon separate premium paid for personal accident, as well as for the driver also, independently, exclusively. Because of these reasons alone, this defense, though raised in the written version not urged before us.

12. In the policy, there is no prohibition in driving the vehicle, by a person, holding leaners license. As repeatedly held by the courts, as incorporated in the complaint itself, a driver, holding learners license would be a person duly licensed person, within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, and such a person is entitled to drive the vehicle, if driven, that cannot be treated as violation of conditions of policy, which is supported by the decision of National Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Ramesh Kumar (IV (2006) CPJ 460 NC). Realizing this, defense was taken as if there was no display that the vehicle was driven by LLR holder, displaying L, accompanied by a person knowing, driving. For all these averments, to prove except the plea, we do not have any materials. In the surveyors report though, it is said permanent LMV license holder was not driven alongwith driver, and L symbol was not affixed in the vehicle, and it is not known, on which basis this conclusion was reached. Even assuming that it is a violation, that is not the cause of the accident, to invalidate the policy. If the vehicle on its own, while driven by LLR holder, caused anything, it can be said there is a policy violation, whereas, in this case admittedly another lorry hit this vehicle, caused accident, thereby indicating LLR holder is not the case for the accident. Further, since it is not prohibited, that LLR holder is not entitled to drive the vehicle and LLR holder also duly authorized, to drive the vehicle, we conclude as rightly did by the District Forum, there is no violation of the policy, except this point, not other point was urged before us. The District Forum, considering all defense, has correctly come to the conclusion, awarded, compensation as per the personal accident coverage, to the limit of driver liability, with bearest minimum interest of 6%, since repudiated unjustifiably, which finding we are not willing to disturb, including the compensation, for mental agony and cost.