IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No.405 of 2003. Date of decision: June 02, 2008. United India Insurance Co. … Appellant Versus Babu Ram & Ors. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr Dinesh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral): The insurer of car bearing registration No.DBA-6125 is in appeal against the award dated 21.6.2003 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan in MAC Petition No.88-SS/2 of 2002 awarding Rs.65,000 compensation to respondent No.1 – claimant along with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of petition i.e. 10.9.2002 till deposit of the award amount. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1, a mechanic, on 27.4.2002 at about 9 A.M. at Jabli was checking the air pressure of tyre of truck bearing registration No.HR-35K-2020. A Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… Maruti Car, bearing registration No.DBA-6125, owned by respondent No.3 Devinder Singh, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Gopal Dutt Sharma respondent No.2, struck against respondent No.1 - claimant and dragged him up to a distance of 25 feet as a result of which respondent No.1 sustained multiple injuries. The respondent No.1 got himself treated and spent about Rs.1 lac on his treatment but despite treatment he had not fully recovered and suffered permanent disability which has adversely affected his earning capacity. He has, thus, claimed Rs.10 lac compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The appellant was the insurer of the car at the time of accident. 3. The driver Gopal Dutt Sharma contested the petition by filing reply. He denied the negligence on his part. He attributed negligence on the part of respondent No.1. He has submitted that he was holding an effective and valid learner’s licence issued on 8.3.2002 by Licensing Authority, Chandigarh. He was accompanied with Anil Kumar Kharbanda who was sitting in the car and was holding a valid and effective licence issued by Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh. The owner of the car also contested the petition and has submitted that respondent No.1 himself was negligent and accident took place due to his own carelessness, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. He has submitted that the car at the time of accident was comprehensively insured with the appellant insurer. Gopal Dutt Sharma was driving the car and was …3… having an effective and valid learner’s driving licence, Anil Kumar Kharbanda was sitting with the driver and he too was holding a valid and effective licence. He denied his liability and has submitted that liability, if any, is of the insurer of the car. The appellant insurer has also contested the claim petition and has submitted that insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. The driver who was driving the car at the time of accident did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.65,000 to respondent No.1 and against the owner, driver and insurer of the car jointly and severally. The amount of interim compensation, if any, paid was ordered to be deducted from the award amount. The insurer has come in appeal against the impugned award. 4. I have heard Mr.Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant / insurer, Mr.Dinesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and gone through the record. Mr.Ashwani Kumar Sharma has submitted that the driver of the car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He was holding only learner’s licence. Anil Kumar Kharbanda has been introduced in the case by the owner and driver of the car falsely. He was not present in the car at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal has wrongly held the liability of insurer to pay the compensation. The insurer as per policy Ext.RW-3/A is not liable to pay any compensation to respondent No.1. …4… 5. Gopal Dutt Sharma, driver of the car, filed his reply to the claim petition on 15.1.2002, Devinder Singh, owner of the car, has filed his reply on 10.1.2003. The appellant insurer of the car filed reply to the claim petition on 14.1.2003. It is, thus, clear that at the time of filing of the reply by the insurer the defence of owner and driver was very much within the knowledge of the insurer but despite that in the reply to the claim petition the insurer has nowhere taken the stand that Anil Kumar Kharbanda was not sitting in the car with driver Gopal Dutt Sharma at the time of accident. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plea raised by owner and driver of the car that Anil Kumar Kharbanda was sitting in the car with the driver at the time of accident is an after thought. PW-2 Babu Ram has stated that he could notice that two persons were sitting in the car. On behalf of the insurer it was suggested to him that only driver was sitting in the car but this suggestion was denied by PW-2 Babu Ram. He has also stated that he does not know who lodged the F.I.R. PW-4 Sunder Lal has also stated that there were two persons in the car at the time of accident. RW-1 Gopal Sharma has stated that Devinder Singh is the owner of the car. He has stated on 27.4.2002 he was going from Chandigarh to Solan and his friend Anil Kumar Kharbanda was also with him. He was driving the car under the supervision of Anil Kharbanda. He has proved his learner’s licence Ext.RW-1/B. RW-2 Anil Kumar Kharbanda has corroborated the statement of RW-1. He has proved his driving licence Ext.RW- …5… 2/A. RW-3 Anil Kumar Mehta, Assistant Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has stated that vehicle No.DBA-6125 was insured with their company from 25.1.2002 to 24.1.2003 and he has placed on record policy Ext.RW-3/A. 6. The insurer has limited defence. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, it has been held that if a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having learner’s licence, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy the decree. In the present case, it has been proved on record that driver of the car was having learner’s licence Ext.RW- 1/B to drive light motor vehicle. It has also been proved on record that Anil Kumar Kharbanda was having licence to drive light motor vehicle Ext.RW-2/A and Anil Kumar Kharbanda was sitting in the car at the time of accident. The car was being driven by the driver at the time of accident under the supervision and control of Anil Kumar Kharbanda who was having valid and effective driving licence to drive light motor vehicle at the time of accident. The car was insured vide policy Ext.RW-3/B and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that insurer of the car is also liable to pay the compensation along with the driver and owner of the car. The insurer has failed to point out any legal defect in the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no o rder as to costs. June 02, 2008(soni) ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge.