HC wheels in: Get ‘proper’ instructor beside you to claim compensation

New Delhi, April 16 Planning to learn drive your car with the help of an “experienced” friend? Chances are your insurance company may not pay up the third party compensation if you meet with an accident.
And, holding a learner’s driving licence will also not prove to be sufficient defence for you to coax the insurance company from backing off.
The Delhi High Court has exempted insurance companies from paying third party insurance, even for those holding learners’ licence, if a qualified driving instructor does not accompany them at the time of the accident.
The decision comes as a dampener for those who employ their driver, relative, or a friend to sit in the front passenger seat while learning to drive.
“He (person sitting along with the one learning to drive) may be perfect in driving a vehicle… but he still cannot be considered an expert in imparting instructions for making the other learn how to drive a vehicle,” Justice Kailash Gambhir observed. The court also distinguished between an “experienced driver” and an “instructor”.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a learners’ driving licence-holder who “negligently” ran over a woman and grievously injured her son eight years ago.
Flashback 2000Jeet Singh had fatally hit Triveni, a tea stall owner, at I-Block Market, Ashok Vihar in the early hours of September 28, 2000. She was declared dead when brought to the hospital. Five years later, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) exonerated National Insurance Company Limited from paying the compensation to the victims’ family and directed Singh to bear it himself.
In his appeal, Singh argued before Justice Gambhir that the insurance company was liable to pay as he was at the time holding a learners’ licence and was accompanied by Daljeet Singh, a licensed driver who was training him.
In reply, the court observed that learners’ licence-holders could only claim insurance protection if their licence was processed as per guidelines of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules of 1989. The Rules call for an expert instructor to be present in the vehicle, and a visible ‘L’ sign be put on the car.
The court held that Daljeet’s “presence” in the car was not enough — as per the Motor Vehicles Rules, he should have been “sitting in such a position as to control or stop the vehicle”. Justice Gambhir, after perusing the case documents, also found that Daljeet’s licence papers were not placed on record before the MACT.
Dismissing the appeal for lack of merit, the court upheld the Tribunal’s decision on the ground that Jeet Singh was in the wrong and liable to pay the compensation as there was no evidence that his “instructor” — Daljeet Singh — possessed a valid driving licence.
Krishnadas Rajagopal
Posted online: Thursday , April 17, 2008 at 12:49:11Updated: Thursday , April 17, 2008 at 12:49:11 Expressindia