Insurer Not Liable If Learner's Licence Holder Not Accompanied By Instructor With Valid License At The Time Of Accident: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that an insurance company won't be liable if a vehicle driven by a learner's license holder met with an accident, and the driver failed to prove compliance with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, such as being accompanied by an instructor with valid license when the accident happened. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360]
The single judge bench of Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa, sitting at Dharwad, has directed the insurer to deposit the compensation amount with the Tribunal and permitted it to be recovered from the vehicle owner, by applying the 'pay and recover' principle.
“…Although the Insurance Company may not be liable stricto sensu, the Insurance Company can be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle…”, the Court said.
To elaborate further, the High Court applied the 'pay and recover' principle after it concluded that the driver with learner's license failed to prove that he was accompanied by an instructor who had a valid driving licence and who was seated as to be in a position to control or slow down the car when the accident occurred.
“…. The Tribunal has concluded, only on the ipse dixit of the driver, that he was accompanied by the instructor… at the time of the accident. It is relevant to note that the purported instructor was not examined. He would have been the star witness on behalf of the driver. Further, the Police charge sheet cites certain eye witnesses to the incident. None of them is examined. The charge sheet does not mention the presence of the alleged instructor. The complaint filed by the child's father…also does not mention the presence of the alleged instructor… Further, there is absolutely no evidence of compliance with clause(c) of Rule 3 regarding display of the “L” sign”, the court noted in the order.
For context, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenging the Tribunal's award making it liable to compensate the parents of the deceased minor who was hit by the respondent driver.
The Chikodi MACT Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh (2004), held that even though the driver held only a learner's licence, the Insurance Company remained liable.
Before the High Court, the insurer argued that argued the statutory conditions subject to which a learner's licence can be used were not fulfilled. It was contended that the learner's license- driver was not accompanied by a qualified instructor, and the purported instructor was never examined.
The Court further noted that the insurance policy contained an express clause permitting a learner's licence holder to drive only if he satisfied the requirements of Rule 3.
“…The stipulation in the contract is in the nature of an exclusion clause because, if the conditions in Rule 3 of the CMV Rules, 1989 are not complied with, the insurer is not liable under the contract of insurance… 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 …Non-compliance with any of the conditions stipulated in Rule 3 of the CMV Rules, 1989 would absolve the Insurance Company of its liability if the driver was holding a learner's licence” the Court inferred.
The court hence allowed the appeal in part and modified the finding that the insurance company was jointly liable.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Hulagamma Mallappa Biradar & Ors.
Case No: MFA No. 104064 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360