- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1554 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. BABU S/O SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BOJAMMA A M, A/W SRI. SHIVAREDDY K N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARAYANA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT THORAHALLI VILLAGE TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 2. THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.6 1ST FLOOR, LATTICE BRIDGE ROAD ADIYAR CHENNAI-600002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. P B RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.593/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 82,997/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL COMPLETE PAYMENT TO PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 18.11.2016 passed in MVC No.593/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur1, wherein the Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by respondent No.1/claimant arraying the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `82,997/- with interest at 8% p.a. However, 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 the Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the vehicle, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Tribunal and exonerated the insurer from liability to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle. 3. Along with the above appeal, IA.No.2/2017 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 is filed to permit the appellant to produce the copy of the extract of the Learner’s Licence of the driver of the vehicle, which discloses that the driver had a valid learner’s licence from 25.1.2014 to 24.7.2014. 4. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Smt.Bojamma A.M appearing along with learned counsel Sri Shivareddy K.N, for the appellant, learned counsel Sri Ramesh Kumar, for respondent No.1/claimant and learned counsel Sri P.B.Raju, for respondent No.2/insurer. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/owner that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the vehicle had a Learner’s Licence and hence, he was duly 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 licenced to drive the insured vehicle. Hence, it is contended that the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurer is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer justifies the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that the driver holding a Learner’s Licence is required to be accompanied by a person, who holds a valid Driving Licence as contemplated under Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 19893. 7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record has been perused including the records of the Tribunal. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether IA.No.2/2017 filed for production of additional documents is required to be allowed? ii. Whether the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the owner of the insured vehicle to pay the compensation awarded is liable to be interfered with? Re.question No.(i): 8. The essential factual matrix is undisputed, inasmuch as the driver of the vehicle had obtained a driving 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1989’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 licence (Ex.R1), which was issued on 23.6.2014 and valid till 20.7.2020. The date of accident is 6.5.2014. The Tribunal, noticing the same has also noticed that the official from the office of the Regional Transport Officer has been examined as RW.2, who has produced the driving licence extract as per Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. 9. It is pertinent to note here that along with IA.No.2/2017 filed in the present appeal, an extract of the Learner’s Licence of the driver of the insured vehicle has also been produced, wherein it is forthcoming that the driver had Learner’s Licence to drive the insured vehicle, which is an Autorickshaw from 25.1.2014 to 24.7.2014. It is deposed in the affidavit accompanying the application filed by the appellant, who was the owner-cum-driver, that he had a valid Learner’s Lience, which is annexed along with the application. It is further deposed that since he was not educated, he was not aware of the legal consequences and that he was under the impression that liability was covered under the policy of insurance. Hence, the Learner’s Licence was not produced before the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 10. Having regard to the fact that the document produced along with IA.No.2/2017 is required to adjudicate the question with regard to the liability for payment of compensation, it is just and proper that IA.No.2/2017 be allowed. 11. Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Re.question No.(ii): 12. Admittedly, as on the date of the accident, the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle was the holder of a Learner’s Licence, which authorized him to drive the insured vehicle, which is an Autorickshaw. 13. Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19884 mandates the person driving a motor vehicle in any public place to hold an effective Driving Licence. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 stipulates that Section 3(1) of the Act of 1988 shall not apply to a person who is the holder of an effective Learner’s Licence issued to him in Form 3. Rule 3(b) states as under: 4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 “3 General: (b) such person is 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; “ (emphasis supplied) 14. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Felix Correa5 was considering a fact situation, wherein a claim petition was filed claiming compensation and the driver of the insured motor cycle had a Learner’s Licence. Considering the said fact situation, this Court held as follows: “15. The condition that a person duly licenced to drive the vehicle should be by the side of such learner to be able to readily control or stop the vehicle is perhaps not made compulsory in case of & person holding Learner's Licence in respect of a motor-cycle perhaps for the reason that no such person could be accommodated on a two wheeler anywhere else than on its pillion if it has one. Therefore the person sitting on the pillion could not be equated to the driver of a vehicle other than a two wheeler. Thus even where a person possesses a Learner's Licence in case of a motor-cycle as in this case he becomes solely responsible for effectively driving or riding the vehicle, he is in sole control of it and therefore if a person driving a motor-cycle under Learner's Licence can be said to be a person duly licensed" or holding a valid licence would be the next point for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 5 ILR 1989 KAR 441 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 15. In the case of Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Jyotiba Appaji Shigate6, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, a coordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows: “22. The proviso of the Rule defines that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b) wherein as per 3(b) of the Rules says the instructor is required to sit in a position to control or stop the vehicle, which means a person who is holding learner's licence and learning driving of four wheeler vehicle shall always accompany an instructor. xxxx 28. xxxx 28. On the other hand, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts in the case of Mandar Madhav Tambe, (stated supra), Mahamooda (stated supra), Sheela Devi and others (stated supra) and Shivapal Singa (stated supra) the licence held by respondent No.1, even though it was a learner's licence, but it is a valid licence. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Even the Central Motor Vehicle Rules strictly contemplates accompanying of an instructor in a motor vehicle, but excludes the motorcycle. Therefore, I hold that a learner's licence is also a valid licence, the rider or the learner need not accompany any instructor for motorcycle, as required in case of four wheeler motor vehicle, which require instructor. Therefore, the contention taken up by the insurer that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and she was 6 2019(4) AKR 782/AIR OnLine 2019 Kar 1560 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 holding only learner's licence to ride a motorcycle on the road, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has rightly concluded that the learner's licence held by respondent No.1 is a valid licence and has rightly fastened the liability on the insurer. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal regarding fastening of liability on the insurer does not call for any interference of this Court. …..” (emphasis supplied) 16. In the case of S.Gangadhar v. H.Yallappa & Ors.,7 a coordinate Bench of this Court was considering a fact situation wherein the claimant who was traveling in an Autorickshaw met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Autorickshaw. The driver of the said Autorickshaw was the holder of a Learner’s Licence. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against the insurer. In the appeal filed by the claimant, this Court held as follows: ”15. Insofar as the law in regard to liability of the Insurance company is concerned, when the driver of the offending vehicle holds only learner’s licence is no longer res Integra. In the judgment of Swaran Singh’s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the contentions urged on behalf of the Insurance company at large regarding the liability of Insurance company, when the driver of the offending vehicle holds only learners licence. It is no doubt true that law would not per se authorize holder of the learner’s licence use of the said licence for carrying passengers. Nevertheless, as far as third party is 7 Judgment dated 12.10.2020 in MFA No.20311/2011 (Dharwad Bench) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 concerned; he would be ignorant as to whether the driver of the vehicle using learner’s licence or regular licence. Therefore, the Insurance company cannot disown its responsibility. Following the dictum in the case of Swaran Singh supra, this court is of the considered opinion that the order of the tribunal dismissing the case as against the Insurance company in the impugned judgment cannot countenanced in law. Hence, the above point is answered in negative.” (emphasis supplied) 17. In the case of Jyotiba Appaji Shigate6, the coordinate Bench of this Court was considering a case of a holder of Learner’s Licence, who was riding a two wheeler. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Felix Correa5 also was considering a case of a rider of a motor cycle who was holding a Learner’s Licence. However, keeping in mind the rationale of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Felix Correa5 that the person who is required to accompany the holder of a Learner’s Licence ought to be in a position to control the vehicle in question, keeping in mind that in the case of a three wheeler Autorickshaw there is no specified place for an instructor to be seated next to the driver of the vehicle and having regard to the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of S.Gangadhar7, wherein it was noticed that the claim petition having been filed by a third party, as also - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co., v. Swaran Singh & Ors.,8 wherein it has been held that the holder of a Learner’s Licence is also “duly licenced to drive an insured vehicle”, it is just and proper that the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurer from payment of compensation and saddling liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the vehicle be interfered with. 18. Having regard to the discussion made above, question No.(ii) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative and it is held that the insurer of the offending vehicle be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation awarded. 19. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The above appeal is partly allowed; ii. The judgment and award dated 18.11.2016 passed in MVC No.593/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, is modified only to the extent of holding that the 8 AIR 2004 SC 1531 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22441 MFA No. 1554 of 2017 insurer, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal shall be liable to pay the compensation awarded together with accrued interest. iii. The amount deposited by the appellant in the above appeal be refunded to the appellant. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57