Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The National Insurance Company ... vs Talada Narasinga Rao And Another on 31 January, 2022

           THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.1100 OF 2011

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is

filed by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved

by the Order dated 21.12.2010 in M.O.P. No.1001 of 2009 on the file of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge,

Visakhapatnam ('the Tribunal', for brevity), whereby 1st respondent-

claimant was awarded compensation of Rs.65,000/- for the injuries

sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

22.11.2008.

2. Heard the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for

the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the 1st

respondent/claimant and perused the record.

3. 1st respondent herein is the claimant, 2nd respondent

herein is owner of the subject vehicle and appellant herein is the

insurance company. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are

hereinafter referred to, as per their array in the claim petition.

4. The claimant filed the claim petition in M.O.P.No.1001 of

2009 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for

the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred

on 22.11.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Hero

Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP37AN 6867.

It is his case that on 22.11.2008 at about 8.15 p.m., while he reached

the place opposite to Tilak Hospital, near Rama Talkies bus stop, on

foot, the subject vehicle, driven by rider of 1st respondent-owner rashly

and negligently at high speed coming in same direction without blowing

horn, dashed him, and as a result, he sustained head injury and fell

unconscious. It is stated that claimant was working as Mazdoor in

Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and earning salary of

Rs.6,872/- per month, and because of the head injury, he became

mentally dull and lost his memory power and is unable to attend to his

duties, and he spent Rs.40,000/- towards medicines and Rs.2,000/-

towards transportation, and due to the accident, he was absent from

duties from the date of accident till 31.12.2008 and thereby lost salary.

Hence, the claim petition.

5. 1st respondent-owner filed counter denying the material

allegations in the claim petition and contending that rider of the subject

vehicle had a valid driving licence and the vehicle is duly insured with

2nd respondent-insurance company.

6. 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying

material allegations in the claim petition and contending that rider of

the subject vehicle was holding LLR licence at the time of the accident,

and as there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the

insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. The Tribunal framed the follows issues for enquiry.

            1)     Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the
                   motor accident occurred due to the rash and
                   negligent   driving    of   the   vehicle   i.e.   bearing

No.AP37A 6867 (Motor cycle) driven by its driver ?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3) To what relief ?

8. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to

A13 were got marked, on behalf of the claimant, and R.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Ex.B1 was got marked, on behalf of 2nd respondent-

insurance company. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on

behalf of 1st respondent-owner.

9. Vide the impugned Order, the Tribunal, on appreciation of

the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation of

Rs.65,000/- to the claimant jointly and severally against the

respondents, with proportionate costs and future interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved

by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by 2nd respondent-

insurance company.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company submits that the rider of the accident vehicle was having only

a learner's licence at the time of the accident and there is violation of

terms and conditions of the policy the Tribunal; that the Tribunal

erroneously fixed the liability on the appellant-insurance company; that

the driver of the crime vehicle is not holding valid driving license at the

time of accident and is having only LLR, as per rules he should drive

vehicle only in the presence of a driver, in the instant case no regular

driver is present by the side of the driver of the crime vehicle.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st

respondent-claimant contends that the Tribunal had taken all the

factors into consideration and granted compensation of Rs.65,000/- as

against a claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is just and reasonable, and

there are no circumstances to interfere with the same and ultimately

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. In order to award compensation, the Tribunal has taken into

consideration the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Swaran Singh & Others1, wherein,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person holding LLR licence is entitled

to drive the vehicle and the insurance is liable to pay the amount. In this

case on hand also, the rider of the motor cycle was holding LLR at the

time of accident and thus, under these circumstances both the

respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said

amount awarded to the petitioner/claimant.

13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent-claimant relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Versus Swaran Singh and

others2, wherein, in para-93 and 94 held as follows:

"93. The 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 when a vehicle is 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 vehciel. 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.

94. The provisions contained in the said Act provided also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Section 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for restriction in the matter of grant of driving lincece, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions of 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

2004 (1) Supreme 243

(2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297

of the statute. Such rules 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 an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered a surplusage."

14. In view of the above legal settled principles of law, this Court

viewed that, in this case, the rider of the motor cycle was holding LLR

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. Under the above circumstances, both the respondents

are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

15. Having regard to the above, the findings of the Tribunal are

based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, this

Court feels that the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation and the

present appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

16. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal