NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ZANA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 had filed M.A.C. Petition No. 49 of 28.4.1994 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). Claim of Rs. 2,30,400 was awarded to respondent Nos. 1 to 9. Being aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company has come in appeal before this court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents-claimants. The counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. It is an admitted fact that the driver was having a learner's licence. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver was not accompanied by a person having effective driving licence as an instructor and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable. He has referred to the clause in the policy of insurance Exh. R-5. It reads as under:

(3.) Basing his argument on this clause Of insurance policy, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is a breach of this clause because the requirement of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was not complied with. The relevant rule 3 (b) of the Rules reads as under: