FAO 99 of 2006 31.8.2009 Present: Shri A.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate vice Shri Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri R.R. Rahi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. The only point raised in this appeal by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that on the date of accident, the owner of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. Learned counsel has referred to the evidence of RW1 Shri Ashok Kumar, Motor Licence Clerk, office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Manali, who states in his evidence that the owner of the accidented vehicle which is a motor cycle was issued a learner’s licence No. 1234 on 21.8.2000 from the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Manali. He states that licence was again re-issued/renewed from 14.8.2002 to 13.2.2003, and thereafter from 1.8.2003 to 31.1.2004. It is undisputed before me that the accident occurred on 6.8.2002. There is no evidence on record to show that on that date, the owner of the vehicle who was driving it, was possessed of any licence. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has drawn my attention to Ext.RW2/A which is a learner’s licence issued to the owner on 29.6.2004 and which was valid from 29.6.2004 to 28.6.2007. He submits that such licence is issued only in case the person possesses a valid driving licence. In these circumstances, there can be no doubt that on 6.8.2002 the owner of the vehicle was possessed of a valid licence. I am unable to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. There is no evidence on record to show that on 6.8.2002 he had either learner licence or regular licence. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on a -2- judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & another (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 136. In particular, he has referred to the following dicta laid down by the Supreme Court:- “12. The word “effective’ licence is defined in Section 3 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 149, however, uses the word duly licensed. In Swaran Singh, a three-Judge bench of this Court has drawn a distinction between the said two terms. 13. The Act provides for grant of a learner’s licence. It indisputably is a licence within the meaning of the provisions thereof. A person holding a learner’s licence is also entitled to drive a vehicle but it is granted for a specific period. The terms and conditions for grant of a learner’s licence are difference from those of a regular licence. Holding of a learner’s licence is imperative for filing an application for grant of licence as provided for in Rule 4 of theRules. The converse however is not true. 14. Only because the appellant held a learner’s licence which had expired and was not valid on the date of accident, he cannot be said to be duly liencesed. It is true that despite the expiry of a regular licnece, it may be renewed, but no provision has been brought to our notice providing for automatic renewal of learner’s licence.” In this view of the matter, I hold that respondent No. 2 was not possessed of a valid driving licence. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is exonerated from its liability. The appellant will be entitled to recover this amount from the owner-respondent No.2. This accident occurred on 6.8.2002 and petition was disposed of on 29.6.2005. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company in this Court will be disbursed to the claimant. The Insurance Company will be entitled to execute the award against the owner-respondent No. 2. This appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall no order as to costs. August 31, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J.