No Blanket & Unqualified Proposition That Learner's Licence Is As Good As Valid Driving Licence For Insurance Coverage Purposes: Karnataka High Court
The Insurer was directed to pay compensation and recover from owner-driver after the Court found that the Rule 3 conditions for learner's licence holders were never proved to have been complied with.
The Karnataka High Court has held that a driver holding a learner's licence is deemed to hold a valid driving licence for the purposes of insurance coverage only if he was driving subject to the specific conditions attached to that licence, and that there is no unqualified rule treating a learner's licence as equivalent to a full driving licence regardless of compliance with those conditions.
Partly allowing the insurer's appeal, the Court modified the Tribunal's award to direct that while the Insurance Company must pay the compensation awarded to the parents of a four-year-old child killed in the accident, it would be entitled to recover that amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, since the statutory and contractual conditions permitting a learner's licence holder to drive had not been established.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa observed, “The upshot of the above discussion is that in Swaran Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the Insurance Company is liable even if the vehicle is driven by a driver holding a learner’s licence provided he was driving subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence. The conditions in the licence take us directly to Rule 3 which imposes certain conditions for a learner to be exempt from the prohibition in Section 3 of the M.V Act. The ratio decidendi of Swaran Singh’s case is that a learner holding a learner’s licence is deemed to be holding a valid driving licence only if he was driving subject to the conditions in the licence. There is no blanket and unqualified proposition that a learner’s licence is as good as a valid driving licence for purposes of insurance coverage”.
Advocate S.V. Yaji appeared for the appellant and Advocate Santosh S. Hattikatagi appeared for the respondent.
The appeal arose from a claim petition filed by the parents of a four-year-old boy who was struck and killed by a car in Chikodi in December 2020. The owner of the car, who was also driving it at the time, held only a learner's licence and claimed he was being instructed by a friend seated beside him. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikodi, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, held the Insurance Company jointly liable to pay compensation despite the driver holding only a learner's licence.
The Insurance Company challenged this finding, contending that while a learner's licence holder is not automatically excluded from coverage, the statutory conditions under Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, requiring the presence of a qualified instructor in a position to control the vehicle and display of an "L" sign, were never satisfied, and that this also breached an express condition in the insurance policy itself. The claimants and the owner-driver relied on Swaran Singh to argue that liability could not be denied merely because the driver held a learner's licence.
Examining Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rule 3 of the CMV Rules, 1989, the Court held that these provisions create a conditional exception to the general prohibition on driving without an effective licence, an exception available only where the learner is accompanied by a qualified instructor positioned to control the vehicle and where the vehicle displays the prescribed "L" sign.
The Court found that the Tribunal had noted Rule 3 but failed to examine whether its conditions were actually fulfilled, relying instead on the driver's own uncorroborated claim of being accompanied by an instructor who was never examined as a witness, whose presence was not mentioned in the police charge-sheet or the original complaint, and no evidence was led of the "L" sign having been displayed.
“Reverting to the facts of the present case, from the gamut of evidence available on record, it is clear that the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle did not prove that he was accompanied by an instructor at the time of driving the vehicle, as he himself held only a learner’s licence. It was also not proved that the ‘L’ sign was displayed. Thus, the driver was not driving the car subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence. This has resulted in a breach of the requirements of Rule 3 of the CMV Rules, 1989 which are made applicable by virtue of sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the M.V Act, 1988. There is also a violation of the contractual stipulation. The parties are bound by the terms of the contract of insurance. For all these reasons, the inescapable conclusion will be that the appellant/Insurance Company will not be liable to pay compensation to the claimants in the present case”, it noted.
Cause Title: The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hulagamma Mallappa Biradar & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:14009)
Appearances:
Appellant: S.V. Yaji, Advocate.
Respondent: Santosh S. Hattikatagi, Sourabh Mirje, Shivaraj S. Ballolli, Advocates.