IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1017 of 2006(C) --------------------------------- OPMV.332/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------- ANTONY ALIAS ANTHONY T.L. S/O.LONAPPAN, THETTAYIL HOUSE, KUZHUR DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 : ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. JOHN U.K. S/O.KOCHAPPAN, UKKEN HOUSE, KUNDOOR DESOM, THIRUMUKKULAM VILLAGE, KUNDOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAMACHANDRAN M.V. S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MAKKOLY HOUSE, KURUMASSERY P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., P.B.NO.27, MANAPPATT BUILDING, NORTH NADA, KONDUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) - R3 SRI.E.M.ABDULKHADIR - R2 SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU - R2 SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.NO.1017/2006 ORDER ON I.A.NO.1128/2006 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1017/2006 DISMISSED 13.08.2008 SD/-, M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No. 1017 of 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P. (MV) No. 332/2000. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he was awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,422/-. The Insurance Company was directed to make the payment and get it reimbursed from the owner and the driver. Aggrieved by the said decision, the driver has come up in appeal. 2. The point that arises for determination is whether there was a valid learner's licence on the date of the accident and if so, whether the Insurance Company can be exonerated from the liability. The Tribunal found that the learner's licence was valid for the period from 7.11.1998 to 6.05.1999 as per Exhibit B1. Then the tribunal held that the accident took place on 7/10/1999 and therefore, there was no learner's licence and hence held that he could not drive a vehicle without licence. The learned counsel had produced before me a certified copy of Exhibit B1 M.A.C.A.No. 1017/2006 Page numbers issued by the authority. It is the copy of the learner's license. There is a specific endorsement as L1/1426/1999,, which indicates that learner's licence was renewed from 18.5.1999 to 17.11.1999 or in other words since the accident was taken place on 7.10.1999 and the validity of the learner's licence was therefore up to 17.11.1999, there was a valid learner's licence at the time of the accident for the appellant herein. 3. Then the next question is what will be the legal effect of driving a vehicle with only a leaner's licence and whether in such a case the Insurance Company can claim exemption. This matter was considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Swaran Singh [2004 (1) KLT 781 SC] . It held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot therefore be said that a vehicle when being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not duly licensed resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the 3rd party. It cannot be said that a M.A.C.A.No. 1017/2006 Page numbers person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists, a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the Act. 4. Then the next question is whether the condition stipulated for using a vehicle by learner's licence holder is complied. In order to substantiate that it is submitted that one Davis was the owner/pillion rider and he had valid driving licence. The certified copy of Exhibit B3 reveals the same. Further, the appellant as well R1 was deposed before the court that the said Davis was travelling as pillion rider and therefore statutory compliance under the Motor Vehicles Act was very well there, for a learner who was driving a vehicle. When it is so, in the light of the decision referred above, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner. There is no breach of policy conditions. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal directing the respondents 1 and 2 to reimburse Insurance Company is set aside and M.A.C.A.No. 1017/2006 Page numbers the Insurance Company is not entitled to get reimbursement of the amount. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. M. N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE scm