- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The short question raised in the present appeals is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant, namely, M/s Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. is obliged to pay the claimant. In order to appreciate the controversies it is necessary to give short facts. The appellant issued a comprehensive policy of insurance in favour of Respondent 1, in respect of a motorcycle which has met with an accident, covering the period between 13-11-1980 to 3-11-1981. On 7-8-1981 at about 5. 00 p. m. one Mr thimmappa Shetty, deceased, who was driving his scooter, met with an accident with the said insured motorcycle. On account of this accident, he succumbed to the injuries. Respondents 2 and 3 who are the widow and minor daughter of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of rupees four lakhs. The matter was contested. The stand of the appellant was that at the time of the accident Respondent 1 was not holding valid driving licence. Even the learner's driving licence was for the period from 14-11-1980 to 13-5-1981 and thereafter fresh learner's licence issued was from 14-8-1981 to 13-2-1982. Hence when the accident took place there was no licence, not even learner's licence hence the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation in terms of the said policy. The Tribunal rejected this contention and awarded compensation of rs 75,000 fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. The Tribunal held that when licence was renewed, it would be deemed to have been renewed retrospectively with effect from 13-5-1981 when the first licence period came to an end. Aggrieved by this an appeal was preferred in the High court which was also dismissed. It is against this the present appeal has been preferred.
(3.) The question raised in these appeals is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar madhav Tambe. This Court relied on the specific clause of the policy, which provided that the person driving the vehicle must hold valid driving licence other than learner's licence. Thus it held, the liability on the insurance company cannot be fastened even if a person holds a learner's licence. In the present case, as we have recorded above, the accident took place on a date which falls between the two said periods of the learner's licence. Thus it is not in dispute, on the day of accident, namely, on 7-8-1981 the driver of the motorcycle was having no licence, not even a learner's licence.;