F.A.O.NO. 3612 OF 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 3612 OF 2004 Date of decision:22nd September, 2010 New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Administrative Officer, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Balbir Singh and another ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J. 1. The Insurance Company challenges the award on the only ground that on the relevant date of accident on 31.05.1999, the driver of scooter did not have an effective driving licence. The driver had a learner's licence effective from 24.08.1998 to 23.2.1999. He had applied for a regular licence and deposited the requisite fee on 10.03.1999. The licence had been issued on 24.08.1999. As we have noted above, the accident had taken place in this interegnum. 2. There is no specific time limit prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act or the rules for grant of certificate from the date of F.A.O.NO. 3612 OF 2004 2 application. There is no provision to treat the date of application or the date when the driving test is given to be the effective date when the licence is issued, though the licence is issued after some delay. Going by the specific term under Section 3 regarding the necessity for driving licence, it contemplates that the driver “holds an effective driving licence”. Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act contemplates exclusion of liability for a person driving, 'who is not duly licenced'. The tense employed requires a state of things that in 'present' and not a future possibility, though definite it may be. 3. In Bhuwan Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Company (2009) 5 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was considering a case of insurer's liability of a driver who had a learner's licence which expired on 22.12.2000 and an application for licence had been made on 22.01.2001. The accident had taken place on 5.01.2001 during the interim period when he did not have a licence. The only difference in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was the application for licences was after the accident but in this case, the application had been made before the accident but he was duly licenced only subsequent to the accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court approached the issue differently. It said that filing of application and grant of licence are prerequisite for holding valid and effective licences (emphasis supplied). Mere application before the accident would not do; the grant of licence ought to be also before the accident. 4. The claim emanates from a third party and hence the F.A.O.NO. 3612 OF 2004 3 insurer's liability shall be to satisfy only the claimants and recover the same from the owner/driver of the scooter. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified to provide for such a right of recovery and the appeal is allowed on the above term. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 22nd September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik