SHIV KUMAR SONI Vs. RITA KUSHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the award dated 28-10-09 passed by the MACT, Satna in Claim Case No. 440/2008 whereby the claim petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident and respondent No. 2 was exonerated, present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 sustained injury in a motor accident which was caused on 18-6-08 by rash and negligent driving of the appellant. It was alleged that the offending vehicle which was driven by appellant was insured with respondent No. 2. It is pleaded that the claim petition be allowed and appellant and respondent No. 2 be directed to pay compensation to respondent No. 1. After holding an enquiry, a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded and respondent No. 2 was exonerated on account that the appellant was possessing learner's licence and was not fulfilling the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act against which the appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(2.) Undisputedly, the date of occurrence is 18-6-08 and the learner's licence which the appellant was possessing was valid w.e.f. 18-6-08 to 17-12-08. No evidence was adduced by the respondent No. 2 to the effect that no licensed driver was sitting on the scooter to instruct the appellant who was possessing learner's licence therefore, the learned Tribunal has not accepted the liability of respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Gopal Thakur and another Vs. Urmila Mahant and others, 2008 ACJ 238, wherein the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Insurance Company has failed to lead evidence to the effect that any other person having valid driving licence was not sitting on the scooter and instructing the driver at the time of accident therefore, the driver who was possessing learner's licence was competent and authorised to drive the scooter and Insurance Company is liable. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Annal Automobiles Vs. Ashish Kumar Shukla and others, 2009 ACJ 1184, wherein the driver possessing learner's licence was driving motor cycle without displaying "L-Board" and was not accompanied by a duly licensed person thereby committing breach of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the owner failed to lead evidence to prove that due diligence and care had been exercised while giving motor cycle. Chhattisgarh High Court held that the owner committed breach of terms and conditions of policy and Tribunal was justified in directing the Insurance Company to pay first and then recover from owner. Thus, it was prayed that the findings in respect of the respondent No. 2 be set aside.

(3.) Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the law laid down in the case of Gopal Thakur , is not applicable in this case because in the instant case respondent No. 2 has examined two witnesses who have specifically stated the Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 were not followed. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating respondent No. 2 and prayed that the appeal be dismissed.