Case: Bhuwan Singh Vs. M/S Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

3. Appellant is the owner of a tractor bearing No. UA06/0363. It hit Paras Gubbar (deceased), son of Shri Harish Chandra Gubbar while he was riding on a cycle. He was aged about 19 years. He sustained an injury on his head and died on the spot. His legal heirs and representatives filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital which was registered as M.A.C.P. No. 86 of 2001. An award of Rs. 1,32,000 was passed in favour of the said applicants/claimants. In the said proceedings, appellant inter alia raised a plea that the tractor was being driven by one Diwan Singh and the appellant being the owner thereof was sitting by his side whereafter he ran away. Villagers stopped the vehicle and a First Information Report was lodged against him alleging that he had been driving the same rashly and negligently.4. It was, furthermore, stated that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Policy Cover No. 58226 for the period 5.11.2000 and 4.11.2001. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, raised a contention that as the driver of the said tractor was not holding a valid and effective licence, it had no liability to reimburse the owner or the driver for the damages payable by the owner of the vehicle to the claimant-respondents.5. The learned Tribunal, inter alia, framed the followingWhether the rash and negligent driving by the driver of tractor No. UA 06/0363 on 5.1.2001 resulted in the accident causing death of Paras Gubbar and whether on the said date the tractor was owned by the respondent No. 1 and was insured with by the respondent No. 2 the Insurance Company?(2) Whether the petitioner suffered damage on account of the said accident and deserved to be compensated, if yes, to what extent and from which party?(3) Whether the petition is maintainable or suffers from non joinder of necessary party has stated by the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in their replies?(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to anyAn award of Rs. 1,32,000 was passed in favour of the claimants. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

Court's reasoning:
14. The Act provides for grant of a learners licence. It indisputably is a licence within the meaning of provisions thereof. A person holding a learners licence is also entitled to drive a vehicle but it is granted for a specific period. The terms and conditions for grant of a learners licence are different from those of a regular licence. Holding of a learners licence is imperative for filing an application for grant of licence as provided for in Rule 4 of the Rules. Converse however is not true. Only because the appellant held a learners licence which had expired and was not valid on the date of accident, he cannot be said to be duly licensed. It is true that despite expiry of a regular licence, it may be renewed, but no provision has been brought to our notice providing for automatic renewal of learners licence.A finding of fact has been arrived at that he had been driving the vehicle. He in view of the pleadings raised by the Insurance Company cannot be said to have been prejudiced byof specific issue as to whether he was driving the vehicle or not. He was aware of the pleadings of the parties. He adduced evidence in that behalf. The Tribunal as also the High Court arrived at a finding of fact that it was the appellant who had been driving the vehicle.18. If that be so, the question raised before us must be determined having regard to the proved facts namely as on the date of accident he was not holding any valid and effective licence.19. In terms of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the awarded amount to the claimants provided the accident is covered by the terms of the policy, although the burden in respect thereof would be in the Insurance Company.20. It is now well settled in view of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act that facts admitted need not to be proved.21. The question as to whether the appellant was holding a valid licence or not was within his knowledge. The driver was to show that he held licence in respect of the vehicle for which he had filed an application. Filing of an application and grant thereof would therefore arefor holding a valid and effective licence.22. As on 5.1.2001 the appellant was not duly licensed as his learners licence expired on 22.12.2000. He filed an application for grant of licence much later. Insurance Company, therefore, in our opinion was not bound to reimburse him in terms of the Contract of Insurance.