The High Court upheld the tribunal's direction of 'pay and recover' and ruled that the appellant violated Rule 3(b) by driving without an instructor. The insurance company must satisfy the award and recover the amount from the appellant. Appeal dismissed.

A learner’s licence qualifies as a valid licence only when the conditions under Rule 3(b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, are met. Motorcycles are not exempt from the requirement of an instructor as per the interpretation of Rule 24(3)(v). Violation of policy conditions by driving without an instructor constitutes a willful breach, justifying the 'pay and recover' order.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India (COI) – Not directly involved.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 41 Rule 27 – Application for leading additional evidence.

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Sections 3, 4(3), 7(2), 10(3), 14, 149(2).

• Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMVR) – Rule 3(b), Rule 24(3)(v).

Subjects:
Motor Vehicle Accident – Learner’s Licence Validity – Rule 3(b) Interpretation – Policy Violation – Pay and Recover – Instructor Requirement – Compensation Liability – Joint and Several Liability – Exemption under Rule 24(3)(v).

Nature of the Litigation:
Appeal filed by Ku. Nilima D/o Murlidhar Dakhane against the judgment and award dated 25 February 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The appellant challenged the direction of 'pay and recover' issued by the tribunal.

Relief Sought:
Appellant sought modification of the tribunal’s judgment, arguing she had a valid learner’s licence at the time of the accident and should be exempted from liability for compensation.

Reason for Filing the Case:
Tribunal held the appellant and the insurance company jointly and severally liable for compensation of Rs. 31,070 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the petition until realization. Appellant contended she held a valid learner’s licence, and liability should fall solely on the insurance company.

Decisions Until Now:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed the insurance company to satisfy the award first and recover the amount from the appellant/vehicle owner.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant, holding a valid learner’s licence, could be exempted from liability for compensation.

2. Whether Rule 3(b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandated the presence of an instructor with a valid driving licence on a motorcycle driven by a learner.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant:
  a. Claimed a valid learner’s licence was sufficient to exempt her from liability.
  b. Relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh [(2004) 3 SCC 297].
  c. Argued that Rule 3(b) was not applicable to motorcycles per Rule 24(3)(v).

• Insurance Company:
  a. Contended that even with a learner’s licence, the appellant breached policy conditions by driving without an instructor holding a valid licence.
  b. Cited judgments from Kerala, Madras, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts emphasizing the mandatory requirement of an instructor for learner drivers.