F.A.No.131/2008 AGAINST C.C.No.12/2007, DISTRICT FORUM, Anantapur 

Between:

1.K.Suryanarayana Raju,

    S/o.Ranga Raju,

2. K.Vijayamma,W/o.K.Suryanarayana Raju,

    Both are residing at Dharmapuri Village,

    Dharmavaram Mandal,

    Anantapur Dist.                                                        …Appellants/

                                                                                          Complainants

          And

1.The Manager,

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Prani Motors, Lakshmi Towers,

Opp.Triveni Complex, Anantapur.

2. The Managing Director,

     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

     G.E.Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada,

     Pune-511 006.

3. The General Manager,

     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

     H.No.3-6-111/8, II floor, Sareast Plaza,

     Street No.18, Main Road,

     Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.                                ….Respondents/

                                                                                         Opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant     :      Mr.K.Parandhamachari

Counsel for the Respondents:       M/s. V.Gowrisankara Rao

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE  SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT                                                   AND

                     SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

.

          WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER,

                             TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per   Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
                                                *****

        Aggrieved by the order  in  C.C.No.12/2007 on the file of District Forum, Anantapur , the complainants preferred this appeal. 

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are  that the complainants are the parents of one Mr.K.Ashok Kumar who took a Package Policy for his new motorcycle with the opposite party by paying  a premium amount of Rs.830/- including Rs.50/- towards owner-cum-driver for the period between 25.7.2005 to 24.7.2006.  The cover note was issued by opp.parties 2 and 3 through opp.party no.1.  On 6.3.06 at about 6.30 p.m. the  said Ashok Kumar was riding on motor cycle and returning from Anantapur to Dharmavaram and dashed against opposite motor cycle, fell down and sustained injuries and died on the same day. The deceased applied for a regular driving license on 6.3.06 and the same was issued on 7.3.06, while on the date of the accident the deceased has a learner’s driving license. The complainants got issued a notice to the opp.party to pay the insured amount but their claim was refused.

        Opp.parties 1 & 2 were set exparte.

        Opp.party no.3 filed written version  admitting the policy, the period of coverage and contending that under personal accident coverage the deceased should have permanent driving license.  As on the date of accident the deceased only had  a learner’s driving license and he was proceeding on the motor cycle without the ‘L’ Board.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy the registered owner cum driver   should hold an effective driving license by the time of accident, which the deceased did not have under Rule 3 of Central M.V.Act and therefore their repudiation is justified. 

        The District Forum based on the evidence adduced  i.e. Exs.A1 to A13 and pleadings put forwards opined that  a learner’s license cannot be equated to a valid driving license and dismissed the complaint.

        Aggrieved by the said order the complainants preferred this appeal.

        The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants contended that  in the  Package Policy  it  is clearly mentioned that a person holding an effective learners license may also drive a vehicle when such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The deceased K.Ashok Kumar was holding effective driving license as on 25.7.2005 itself and received the valid driving license on 7.3.2006 one day after the date of the accident.

        We observe from the record that the issuance of the policy i.e. Personal Package Policy is not in dispute. The period of coverage and the death by accident on  6.3.06 is also not in dispute. It is the case of the appellants/complainants that the deceased was having learners license as on the date of the accident,  but he had already applied for the permanent license and underwent the required tests and his permanent license was issued one day after the date of the accident i.e. on 7.3.06.  It is the case of the respondents/opp.parties that the deceased did not have a valid driving license as per Rule 3 of Motor Vehicles Act and therefore their repudiation is justified.  Section 2  of the Motor Vehicles Act states as follows:

        “Learner’s license- means the license issued by a competent authority under Chapter 2 authorising the person specified therein to drive as a learner, a motor vehicle of any specified class  or description”.

In the instant case it is not as if the learner’s license itself has not been issued.  The deceased was having a valid learners license and was aged 20 years  and he has also applied  for a permanent license and has undergone tests and he was issued the permanent license on the very next date of the accident.  A learner’s license is also a  license within the meaning of the provisions of the Act.  It cannot be therefore said that a vehicle when driven by a learner subject to the conditions specified in the license could not be a person who is not duly licensed resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim. The FIR  Ex.A1 states that there was one pillion rider and that both were injured in the accident. The same is also reflected in the Charge Sheet (Ex.A4 )  and Inquest report (Ex.A3).

The Charge Sheet filed in Crime no.24/06 Ex.A5 clearly states that on 6.3.06 evening the deceased K.Ashok Kumar was coming from Anantapur on his motor cycle along with pillion rider  witness no.6  Sreehari and proceeding to Dharmavaram  and after travelling one kilometer the accused came  on Hero Honda motorcycle from the opposite direction in a  rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased and the pillion rider fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. Both the deceased and the pillion rider were shifted from the scene of offence to R.D.D.Hospital where from they were shifted  to Anantapur where the deceased succumbed to injuries and a case was registered under Cr.No.24/06. Ex.A7 is the driving license issued on 7.3.06 in the name of the deceased.  Keeping in view that the learner’s license is a valid license and that there was a pillion rider at the time of the accident as reflected in Exs.A1, A3 and A4 and  it is not the case of the opp.parties  that the pillion rider did not have a valid driving license,  we are of the considered view that the repudiation of the opposite parties is unjustified.  In fact it is the  main contention of the opp.parties that holding a learner’s license itself  should  be construed as invalid. Even  their exclusion clause do not say so.   The judgement  of the Apex Court in NIC Vs Swaran Singh reported in 2004 ACJ SC(1) clearly states   that the learner’s license is a valid license   within the meaning of the provisions of the Act  unless he is disqualified under Section 3 & 4 of M.V.Act.

Keeping in view the afore mentioned Judgement and Exs.A1,A3 and A4 we are of the considered view that the complainants are entitled to the sum assured of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.3000/-.

In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 9% from the date of  filing of the complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.3000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                MEMBER

                                                                Dt.8.12.2010

Pm*