RAMJAN KHAN Vs. KHUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 29.2.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Datia in Claim Case No. 44 of 1997.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a claim petition alleging that their son Monu was travelling in jeep bearing registration No. DAO 9945 as passenger and was going from Basai to Jhansi on 5.10.1997 at 10 in the morning. No sooner the jeep reached Basai square the appellant No. 2, who was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently applied the brakes forcefully, due to which the deceased Monu Ahirwar who was sitting in the jeep was thrown out and fell on the road. Due to the accident he received injuries and died on the spot. The jeep was owned by appellant No. 1 and driven by the appellant No. 2. According to the claimants the jeep was driven rashly and negligently by appellant No. 2, which has resulted in the accident in which Monu Ahirwar died. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record passed the award of Rs. 60,000 against the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability on the ground that appellant No. 2 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and he was only having a learner's licence and the jeep was insured as a private vehicle, whereas at the time of accident the jeep was found carrying passenger for hire and reward in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance by the appellant. The Claims Tribunal held that owner and driver of the said vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for appellants contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwani, 2004 (1) Supreme 275, wherein it is held that learner's licence is also a valid licence and insurance company would be liable to satisfy an award if the vehicle was driven by a person holding a learner's licence. He submitted that in the instant case at the time of accident, vehicle was driven by the appellant No. 2 who was having a learner's licence and as such the learned Claims Tribunal committed error in holding that insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured.

(3.) In view of the above decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC) and Bhagwani, 2004 (1) Supreme 275, the learned Claims Tribunal committed error in holding that learner's licence is not a valid licence and also committed error in exonerating the insurance company.