Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2707 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co Ltd v. Aruna Devi

2019-10-18

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal to quash and set aside judgment and award dated 6.12.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra in MAC Case No.59/2006. 2. The unfortunate accident happened on 14.11.2005 when Hadmana Ram (deceased) was sitting in auto-rikshaw No.RJ-16PA-091 as a passenger and travelling from Jasol to Surana, while Chun Singh was driving the auto-rikshaw inquestion. 3. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, raised an issue that the auto-riksha driver Chun Singh was holding a licence and that was valid but the same was a learner's licence. As per counsel, Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 a person holding a Learner's Licence is not authorized to driver vehicle unless he is escorted by a person holding effective and valid driving license sitting alongwith him and plate marked "L" is placed in front and rear of the vehicle. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards Insurance Policy (Exh.A-1) to show that a person holding learner's licence, though, can drive a vehicle but cannot carry passenger until and unless he satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989. 4. Counsel for the respondent, however, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh & Ors.,2004 RAR(SC) 17 and has shown licence (Exh.10), which does not have any such condition and merely states that it was valid from 26.8.2005 to 26.8.2006. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :- Learner's licence : 92. 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 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 third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. It cannot be said that a 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 said Act. 93. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Section 3(2) and 6 of the Act provides for the restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. Section 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learner's licences 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 licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner's licence would, thus, also come within the purview of "duly licensed" as such a licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is now a well-settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of main enactment. It is also well- settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage." 5. Counsel for the respondent submits that once there was a valid licence, the Insurance Company has to indemnify the loss caused. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing record, this Court is of the opinion that learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the passenger was being escorted with a person having proper and valid licence or not and whether plate marked "L" was there in front and rear side of vehicle or not, have not been established by either of the parties. Thus, the precedent law of Swarn Singh (supra) shall hold the field as far as legality of person's right to drive a vehicle is concerned. 7. Thus, the precedent law of Swarn Singh (supra) shall hold the field as far as legality of person's right to drive a vehicle is concerned. 7. In light of Swarn Singh's judgment this Court finds that the conclusion reached at by the learned Tribunal do not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed.