HjGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Miscellaneous Appeal (Cl. No. 948/2007 Appellant Respondersts Versus 1. 2. 3. M/s Anaal Auto Mobiles, Supela, Bhiiai, Tahsi! and District Durg Through Manager, Hemant Vaidya, son of R.R. Vaidya, aged 26 years, Resident of Sector-7, Street 10, Quarter No. 1/A, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsit and District Durg (C.G.) (Owner of Motorcvcle No. C.G. 07/L-1565J Ashish Kumar Shukla, aged 15 years, son of Nirmal Kumar Shukla, minor through natural guardi^in/father Nirmal Kumar Shukla, S/o R.A. Shukia, aged 3S years, Rfo 4/7 Radhika Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Police Station Supela, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Avinash Sahu, son of Leelaram Sahu, aged 21 years, resident of Hathkhoj Parautai, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver of motorcvcle No. CG 07/U15651 t Bajaj Ailianze General Insurance Company Limsted, Head Office G.E. Plaza Airport Road, Yarvada Pune, 411006(Mahashtra) Branch OfRce -1st Floor Chauhan Complex, in front of Rajkumar Coliege, near LML Showroom, Raipur (C.G.) flnsurer of Motorcvcle No. CQ 07/L-15651 Misc. Appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ^) Present: Shri J.K. Gupta, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10-08-2007) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defauit as pointed out bythe Registry has been removed. 2. Heard on admission. 3. The appelianVowner is aggrieved by the award dated 20-02- 2007 passed by 12{h Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT') in Claim Case No. 54/2006 whereby the learned MACT while awarding compensation of Rs.42,369/- in a case of personal injury has directed the respondent/insurance Company to pay first and recover the same from the owner of the vehicie by initiating execution proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that on 26.10.2004 respondent No. 2 herein possessed a leamer's driving licence and was driving motor cycle No. CG 07-L-1565. It is also not disputed that the claimant suffered personal injuries on account of coiiusion with the aforesaid motor cycle driven by respondent No. 2 herein. The quantum of compensation awarded by MACT is also not in question in this appeal. St was also not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of driving the motor cycie, respondent No. 2 had not displayed the "L-Boartf' on the motor cycSe and was not accompanied by a duly licensed trainer 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the owner of the vehicle had exercised due diligence and care before entrusting motor cycle to be'driven by Avinash Sahu. Reliance was plac^d on Station and another\/s. Brijbhan Prasad and others, 2006 (5) M.P.H.T. 83 (DB) while contending that in the above '^\\ circumstances, the Insurance Company could not escape liability to pay compensation. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the undisputed facte, i am of the considered opinion that this appeal has no merit. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh ancf others, (2004) 3 S.C.C. 297. itwas held as under: "93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3)and Section 14.] A Jearner's licence is, thus, aiso a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subiecttothe conditions mentioned in the licence (undertined by me), he would not be a person who ts not "duly licensed" resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the ciaim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a leamer's licence is not entitled to dtive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a leamer's licence, the same ^ would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2)ofthesaidAct." "94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving llcence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. .^ Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and .s conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewa! of driving licence. Learner's iicences are granted under the Rules framed by the Central government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the learner's llcences (underlined by me) granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner's iicence would, thus, also come within the purview of "duly licensed" as such a licence is atso granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. it is now a welS-settied principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such ruies are. therefore, required to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well-settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute ap attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should - be considered as surplusage." Thus, a leamer's licence can be said to be effective only on the driver complying with the necessary requirement of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. 7. }n view of the admitted facts that the driver had a learner's iicence and had neither the "L-Board" on the motorcycte nor was accompanied by a duly licensed trainer, there was a clear breach of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (henceforth 'the Rules, 1989'). Under these admitted circumstances, it was for the owner to lead evidence to prove that he had exercised due diligence and caution required under the Rules, 1989 before entrusting the motorcycle to a iearner. 1 8. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appettant is clearly distinguishabte on facts and does not help the appellant in any manner. In that case, the driver was holding a license to drive a tanker but there was no endorsement on his (icense to show that he was <^> authorized to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. Such endorsement was required to be made under Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 1989. It was held that the endorsement or its absence had no effect on the efficiencv of the driver (underlined by me) and, therefore, there was no fundamental breach of the terms and conditions ofthe policy so as to exonerate the insurance company or to fasten liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation. 9. In the present case, although the driver possessed a learner's licence, the owner was required under the Rules, 1989 not oniy to ensure dispiay of the "L-Board" on the vehide but also that the learner/driver is accompanied by a duly qualified and iicensed trainer so that the possibility of mishap could be avoided while learning to drive and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. The owner by allowing the vehicle to be driven in violation of the Rules created an extremely hazardous situation for the third party. Due to violation of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989, it cannot be said that at the time of accident the driver/learner was having an effective driving licence to drive the motor cyclebecause the motor cycle was driven by a learner in clear violation of Rule 3 of the Rutes, 1989. The motor cycle was, thus, driven by respondent No.2 in clear breach of the conditions mentioned in Ruie 3 ofthe Rules, 1989 under which the iearner's licence was granted. . 10. The appellant, i.e., the owner of the vehicle did not enter the witness box to prove due diligence and care in allowing the motor cycle to be driven by a learner. The MACT has also observed in para 21 that "L-Board" was not displayed on the vehicle and a duly quaiified and licensed trainer was also not accompanying the respondent No. 2. The MACT has recorded a finding that the driver/leamer acted in a rash or negligent manner while driving the motor cyde at the time of accident. in this view of the matter, the MACT rightly held that there was a breach of policy condition. In the facts and circumstances' of the case, since the insurer was statutorily liable under the policy of insurance to pay compensation, the MACT rightly ordered the 6 insurance company to pay the compensation first and to recover it from the appellant/owner of the vehicle by initiating execution proceedings. 11. In the result, this appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the stage of admission. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the MACT forthwith. DilipRaosahlebDeshmukb Judge Kvr