ASHOK PARIHAR, J. - (1.) THE claimants -appellants have challenged the award dated 12.7.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kekri, by which, in a case of death of a lady, the appellants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,05,500 with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Apart from prayer for enhancement of the compensation the award has not been challenged to the extent of the insurance company, respondent No. 3 has been exonerated by the Tribunal.
(2.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the appellants, I have carefully gone through the material on record. Tribunal, on the basis of evidence, has taken note of the age, occupation and notional income of the deceased as also dependency of the appellants while quantifying the amount of compensation. Since, after due consideration, proper discretion has been used by the Tribunal, I find no error or illegality in the quantum of compensation.
(3.) HOWEVER , Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company only on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was having only learner's licence, as such, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh : AIR2004SC1531 , in which, the Apex Court has held that even if a vehicle, at the time of accident, is driven by a driver having a learner's licence, the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the decree. While referring to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'), the Supreme Court has observed that even if there exists a condition in a contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149 (2) of the Act. Section 149 (2) of the Act provides for the grounds on which the defence can be taken by the insurance company. In view of the judgment referred to above and the observations made by the Apex Court, the exoneration of the insurance company, in the present case, was not legal and justified.;