F.A.No.1181 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.108  OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM KADAPA

Between:

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Branch Manager, 7/107-3,
1^st Floor, Obula Reddy Complex,
Jayanagar Colony, Kadapa                            Appellant/opposite party

                A N D

A.Amarnadh S/o Ranganadham
aged 47 yrs, Business, Owner of the
Bajaj Discover Motor Cycle
No.AP 04-N 5392 R/o D.No.1/125,
Krishnappanagar, Kadapa

                                                                Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellants                    Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala

Counsel for the Respondent                  Sri P.Veera Reddy

        QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

THURSDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

                                TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                        ***

1.     The short question involved in the subject matter of the appeal is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the amount claimed by the legal heir of the insured where the insured holding a learner’s license without being accompanied by a person holding driving license to drive such vehicle died in the accident.      

2.     The facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent  obtained insurance policy in respect of his Motor Cycle bearing registration number AP-04N-5392 for the period commencing from 27-0802007 and expiring on 26-08-2008. The respondent’s nephew while riding on the Motor Cycle on 27-11-2007 met with an accident when a Tractor coming in opposite direction  hit the Motor Cycle resulting the death of the rider of the Motor Cycle and damage to the vehicle. The respondent shifted the Motor Cycle to Harun Bajaj Motor Show Room and lodged claim with the appellant insurance company. The claim was repudiated on 23-01-2008 by the appellant company on the premise the insured rider does not have valid driving license to drive the Motor Cycle.

3.     The respondent had filed his affidavit and the documents,ExA1 to A7 in support of his claim and the on behalf of the appellant insurance company ExB1 B4 had been marked.

4.     The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that though there was violation of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, the rider was holding driving license and the accident was not occurred due to negligence of the rider of the Motor Cycle.

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party insurance company had filed the appeal on the following grounds:

i)                    Having observed the two wheeler was handed over to the rider who is not authorized to drive, the District Forum committed error in allowing the appeal.

ii)                  The deceased was having only learner’s licnece and was not authorized to drive the vehicle.

iii)                The deceased while riding the Motor Cycle was not accompanied by a person authorized to drive the vehicle and the Motor Cycle had not carried “L” board in front and rear side.

iv)                The deceased was not authorized to go on the road riding on the Motor Cycle and as such he is not entitled to make any contention against the vehicle on the other side.

6.     The points for consideration are:

I)     Whether the respondent has violated the terms of the insurance policy?

II)  To what relief?

7.     POINT NO!:  The appellant insurance company issued insurance policy in respect of the Motor Cycle pertaining to the respondent for the period from 27-08-2007 to 26-08-2008. The insurance policy contains a clause dealing with the person or class of persons entitled to drive the Motor Vehicle and those persons are:

                i)Any person including the insured

                        ii)Any person holding effective driving licence and not
                        disqualified from holding  or obtaining such a licence.

iii) Person holding effective driving licence if satisfies the requirement  of   Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989.

8.     The terms and conditions of the insurance policy are very clear regarding the requirement of a person holding effective driving license to accompany the person riding on the Motor Cycle and holding learner’s license.

9.     Rule 3 of the Central Motor Rules controls the requirement under subsection 1 of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 rather offers the circumstances dispensing with the mandatory requirement as provided by Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:

“No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2)of Section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do .”

10.    The mandatory requirement of possessing valid and effective driving license is relaxed by Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Rules which reads as under:

“The provisions of sub-section 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-

(a)    Such person is the holder of an effective learner’s licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle.

(b)   Such person accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and

(c)    There is painted, in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and rear, the letter ”L” in red on a white background as under-

11.    The exemption provided by Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicle Rules to the mandatory requirement of Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not relax any of the three requirements as provided thereof. Thus, the person holding learner’s license has necessarily to be accompanied by a person holding effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Admittedly, the deceased who had driven the Motor Cycle at the time of the accident was holding learner’s license and was authorized to drive the vehicle subject to his satisfying the requirement of Rule 3(1)of the Motor Vehicle Rules.       

12.    The learner’s license issued in Form No.3 in favour of the deceased Chidananda contains warning to its holder reminding him of the compulsory accompanying of the person holding driving license to drive such vehicle and painting the vehicle with the letter “L”. Therefore, the respondent permitting the deceased ride on the Motor Cycle without his being accompanied by a person holding effective driving license to drive the Motor Cycle is violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. The District Forum ignored the mandatory requirement imposed  by Rule 3 of Motor Vehicle Rules and attempted to dispense with the requirement of person accompanying the deceased on the fateful day when the accident occurred resulting the death of the rider of the Motor Cycle. The findings of the District Forum are not in consonance with the mandate of law and are liable to be set aside.

13.    In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                    Dt.17.11.2011

KMK*