AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R.Ravi, J
These two appeals arise from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV)Nos.767/2008 and 777/2008. The appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company and the only grievance raised is regarding the refusal of permission to recover the amount of compensation directed to be paid, from the insured.
Heard Sri George Cherian (Thiruvalla), learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.V.S.Nampoothiri, learned counsel for the respondents. Parties are referred to as they appear in M.A.C.A.No.738/2013.
A mobile crane driven by the 1st respondent crashed into a house and caused damage to property belonging to the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.767/2008 and injury to the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.777/2008. The accident happened on 29.09.2007. The 2nd respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle. At the time of the accident, the 1st respondent admittedly had a learner's licence No.2243/2007 issued from the SRTO, Thiruvalla, which was valid from 01.06.2007 to 30.11.2007. It is also stated that one Noushad Mohammed who was having a valid driving licence No.2324 and badge No.546/86 was accompanying the 1st respondent at the time of the alleged accident. The appellant contended that since the 1st respondent did not have a valid licence with an endorsement permitting to drive the category of vehicle, ie., a crane, on the date of accident, it amounted to violation of the policy conditions and hence they are entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the respondents.
The Tribunal has considered the issue elaborately and found that the 1st respondent had a valid learners licence and an "L" Board has been fixed on front and back of the vehicle. Sri Noushad Mohammed who was examined as RW2 had stated that he was accompanying the 1st respondent at the time of the accident. Ext.P5 is the learners licence issued to the 1st respondent. The Tribunal has referred to Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which says that the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive so long as such person is the holder of an effective learners licence and is accompanied by an Instructor holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The Rule says that the Instructor has to sit in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. Referring to Ext.P9 insurance policy, the Tribunal has found that a person holding a learner's licence can also drive the vehicle if he satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The Tribunal, on the basis of the available evidence held that the 1st respondent was duly licensed and the licence has been granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation since there is no fundamental breach of the policy conditions.
Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle if he does not hold an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. The Central Government has made Rules in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules specifically says that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive so long as he has a valid learners licence and is accompanied by an instructor holding a valid driving licence. The proviso to Rule 3 says that the person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b). Clause (b) is the rule which requires that the Instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. A Division Bench of this Court had considered whether the absence of a pillion rider with a valid licence, when a person with a learners licence is driving a motor cycle will amount to breach of the conditions of the policy condition in the decision in Oriental Insurance Company, Ernakulam v. Baby & Ors. reported in [2015 (3) KLT 121] and held that it is purely technical and cannot be termed as a fundamental breach of the policy conditions and that the Insurance Company cannot avoid liability in such cases. There is also nothing to show that the accident happened only for the reason that the instructor was not sitting alongside the 1st respondent.
No grounds have been made out warranting interference with the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeals fail and are dismissed.