Rama Nand Pandey And Ors. vs Nisha Tiwari And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1142 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the person who died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has further observed that since the accident was caused by a person who had only a "learners license" in his favor it will be the obligation of the driver and owner of the vehicle to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the award, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license duly issued by the Transport Authority in his favor on 19.4.1992, and the same was valid till April, 1995. It is submitted by him that the license was again renewed w.e.f 19.2.1996 and was valid up to 19.2.1999. It is submitted that in between the driver had obtained the learners license on 1.5.1995 as it was a condition precedent to obtain a regular license from the Regional Transport Authority. It is submitted that though the accident was caused on 8.9.1995, but firstly as the license of the driver was renewed on 19.2.1996, the same would be deemed to have been renewed w.e.f the date of expiry of the old license i.e. 19.4.1995 and secondly even assuming the renewal will not have retrospective validity from the date of the expiry of the earlier license, as the driver had a learners license in his favor on the date of the accident, he would be deemed to possess a valid driving vehicle as on the date of the accident and the Tribunal, therefore, could not direct the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants.

3. In my opinion, none of the two grounds urged by learned counsel for the appellant has any force. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Jarnail Singh and Ors. JT 2001 (Suppl. 2) SC 218 has held that renewal of a driving license after two years will not retrospectively validate the license from the date of the expiry of the earlier license. It was held that under Section 15 (1) of the Act a license can be renewed from the date of its expiry if an application is made to it for that purpose. But the proviso to the said sub-section provides that `where the application for the renewal is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal." It was held that if the driving license was renwed with effect from the date of its renewal because of the applicability of the first proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act, natural corollary would be that the driver had no license to drive the vehicle from the date of its expiry till it was issued by the Authority after renewal. In the present case, the driving license had expired on 19.4.1995 and was renewed only on 19.2.1996. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court the natural corollary would be that the driver did not have any driving license between 19.4.1995 and 19.2.1996 and the accident having taken place on 8.9.1995, the same was caused by a driver who did not have a valid driving license during that period.

4. I also do not agree with learned counsel for the appellant that since the driver had a "learners driving license" in his favor as on the date of the accident, he would be deemed to have a valid driving license and consequently the appellant would not be held liable to pay compensation. A learners driving license is defined in Section 3 (9) of the Act to mean the license issued by a competent Authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive as a "learner" a motor vehicle of any specified class. The Central Government has framed rules for grant of driving license including the "learners driving license". Under Rule 10 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, an application for the grant of "learners license" is required to be made in Form II in a manner prescribed n the Rules. After a preliminary test is held by the Authority the license under Rule 13 is issued in Form No.3. In terms of Form No.3 a warning has been issued to the holder of the "learners driving license" drawing their attention to Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which prohibit such a driver from driving any motor vehicle unless he had besides him a person duly licensed to drive vehicle and in every case, the vehicle must carry "L" plate both in the front and in the rear of the vehicle. It is thus clear that a person holding a "learners driving license" cannot drive a vehicle without having besides him a person duly licensed to drive that type of vehicle. In the present case admittedly no such person holding a valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question was sitting besides the driver of the offending vehicle holding a"learners driving license" . In that view of the matter there was a clear breach of the conditions of the "learners license" issued by the Government under the Rules and the appellant, therefore, cannot take protection of the driver having the said license to avoid his liability to pay under the award.

5. For the foregoing reasons, since the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident, in my opinion, the Tribunal was fully justified in directing the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the award of the Tribunal which may call for interference by this Court. The appeal has no merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.