Learner’s Licence Valid For Insurance Cover Only If Its Conditions Are Followed: Karnataka HC [Read Judgment]

Dharwad: The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has partly allowed an appeal by an insurance company in a motor accident claim arising from the death of a four-year-old boy, holding that a driver holding only a learner's licence is treated as duly licensed under the Swaran Singh principle only if he was driving subject to the conditions attached to that licence, and that the insurer, though not liable in the strict sense, must pay the compensation and may recover it from the vehicle's owner.

Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa was hearing a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against a judgment and award dated of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikodi, in MVC No.263/2021, which had held the insurer liable to compensate the parents of the deceased child.

The accident occurred on 26.12.2020, when the victim, a boy aged about four years, was standing near a house at Chikkodi and was hit by a car, succumbing to his injuries. A charge-sheet was filed against the owner-cum-driver of the car under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The parents filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, and the driver admitted that he held only a learner's licence for a Light Motor Vehicle, claiming that he was learning to drive under the guidance of a friend who was accompanying him at the time.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, held that notwithstanding the driver holding only a learner's licence, the insurance company remained liable. Before the High Court, counsel for the insurer contended that while a learner's licence by itself may not absolve the insurer, the statutory conditions subject to which a learner may drive had not been fulfilled, since the purported instructor had never been examined as a witness and his presence was not mentioned in the complaint, amounting to a breach of both Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the express conditions of the policy. Counsel for the claimants and for the owner-cum-driver submitted that Swaran Singh squarely covered the case and that the instructor's presence could not be doubted.

Examining Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 3 of the CMV Rules and the Form 3 in which a learner's licence is issued which licenses the holder to drive 'subject to the provisions of Rule 3' and carries an express warning prohibiting him from driving unless accompanied by a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle and unless the vehicle displays 'L' plates at the front and rear the court held that the ratio decidendi of Swaran Singh is that a learner is deemed to hold a valid driving licence only if he was driving subject to the conditions in the licence. The court observed that "there is no blanket and unqualified proposition that a learner's licence is as good as a valid driving licence for purposes of insurance coverage."

On the facts, the court found that the owner-cum-driver had failed to prove that he was accompanied by an instructor, and that it was also not proved that the 'L' sign had been displayed, resulting in a breach of Rule 3 as well as of the contractual stipulation in the policy. The court accordingly held that the insurer would not be liable to pay compensation in the strict sense.

However, applying the further stipulation in Swaran Singh and allied decisions, the court held that the insurance company could nonetheless be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. The appeal was accordingly allowed in part, the Tribunal's finding of joint liability was modified to that extent, and the amount deposited by the insurer was directed to be transferred to the Tribunal, with no order as to costs.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Sri S. V. Yaji, Advocate.

For Respondents 1 and 2: Sri Santosh S. Hattikatagi, Advocate.

For Respondent 3: Sri Sourabh Mirje for Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli, Advocates.

Case Title: The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Hulagamma Mallappa Biradar and Others, Miscellaneous First Appeal No.104064 of 2023 (MV-D)

[Read Judgment]