Shriram General Insurance ... vs Tulsiram
2023 Latest Caselaw 3885 MP

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                    ON THE 13 th OF MARCH, 2023
                   MISC. APPEAL No. 1511 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE 8, E.P.I.P.R.L.L.C.O. SITAPUR JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN (INSURANCE COMPANY) (THROUGH ITS
MANAGER)

                                                            .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    TULSIRAM S/O SARJU YADAV, AGED ABOUT 67
      YEARS, R/O AHEER KANDA THANA AND TEHSIL
      GHUGHRI,    DISTRICT MANDLA     (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    WASEEM KHAN S/O MOHAMMAD RAMJAN R/O
      GRAM ANJANIYA TEHSIL BICHHIYA , DISTRICT
      MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    RAMESH PRASAD PANORIYA S/O SHRI SOMUDAS
      GRAM GHUTAS TEH. BICHHIYA, DISTRICT
      MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    NASEEBAN BEE W/O MO. RAMJAN R/O GRAM
      ANJANIYA TEHSIL BICHHIYA, DISTRICT MANDLA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS THOUGH SERVED)

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                 ORDER

This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has

been filed against the award dated 30.11.2017 passed by 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mandla (M.P.) in Claim Case No.141/2017.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 29.12.2012 the claimants were going in an auto. When they reached in front of Village Gwara Mohgaon triangle, the auto was dashed by the offending Bolero Jeep No.MP 20 HA 8700 as the driver of the said jeep was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. The claimants filed the claim petition, which has been allowed by the Claims Tribunal by the impugned award.

3. A solitary contention has been raised by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.2 Waseem Khan was holding a learning licence and

therefore, he was not holding a valid licence. It is submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gourilal and another Vs. Bane Singh and others reported in 2008 (2) MPLJ 126, the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated with a rider of pay and recover.

4. None for the respondents though served.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Exhibit D/2 is the history of learning licence of the respondent No.2. It is clear that a learning licence was issued in favour of respondent No.2 on 19.11.2012 which was valid upto 18.05.2013. The accident took place on 29.12.2012. Although the respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle filed his written statement before the Claims Tribunal and claimed that no accident had taken place and he was holding a valid licence and the vehicle was duly insured with the non-applicant No.3, however, it appears that the respondent No.2 Waseem Khan did not appear before the Claims tribunal. The appellant has examined Ritesh Dubey (D.W.1), who has specifically stated that the driver

of the offending vehicle/respondent No.2 was holding a learning licence and it was being used in violation of Rule 3(c) of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The history of learning licence has also been exhibited as Exhibit D/2. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No.2 was having a learning licence at the time of the accident. It is not out of place to mention here that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have not filed the driving licence of the respondent No.2. Rule 3(c) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules provides that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as the provisions of sub Rule (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 3 are complied with. There is nothing on record to show that the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 were complied with by the respondent No.2. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No.2 was not having a valid licence at the time of accident. Accordingly, the Claims tribunal committed an error by not exonerating the Insurance Company.

7. Accordingly, the award dated 30.11.2017 passed by 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mandla (M.P.) in Claim Case No.138/2017 is hereby modified and the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability. However, it shall pay the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the

insurer.

8. With aforesaid modification, the Appeal is allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.03.15 11:09:39 +05'30'