Authorized wife constitutes valid agent; learner’s license satisfies statutory requirements for insurance liability.

On May 8, 2014, Shri Ngawang Gyaltsen was riding his scooty when a motorbike driven by Respondent No. 2 (Amit Kumar Sah) in a rash and negligent manner collided with him, causing grievous injuries.

The victim’s wife, Respondent No. 1, filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act (originally cited under Section 163, later treated as Section 166) as the victim was bedridden.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹12,93,787.11 with 8% interest, directing the Appellant (Insurance Company) to pay.

The Appellant challenged the award on grounds of maintainability (claim filed by wife), negligence (alleging an unknown car caused the accident), breach of policy (owner held only a learner’s license without an instructor), and excessive interest/quantum.

1. Whether the claim petition filed by the wife of the injured person is maintainable under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the motorbike rider.

3. Whether the possession of a learner’s license by the rider constitutes a breach of policy conditions under Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

4. Whether the interest rate of 8% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

The court applied Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which allows an "agent duly authorised" to file a compensation claim.

It relied on the principle from National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004), establishing that a learner’s license is a valid license under the Act and the insurer remains liable to third parties.

Regarding learner’s license conditions, the court applied the reasoning from Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Jyotiba Appaji Shigate, noting that Rule 3(b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (requiring an instructor) is physically and practically inapplicable to motorcycles.

The Court first dismissed the maintainability objection, ruling that a wife authorized by a bedridden husband qualifies as an "agent" under Section 166(1)(d).

On negligence, the Court prioritized the victim's (CW-2) testimony as a "sterling witness" and the Investigating Officer's evidence that the motorbike was on the wrong side of the road.

Regarding the policy breach, the Court held that while Rule 3(b) requires a learner to be accompanied by an instructor, this is not feasible on a motorcycle; thus, the learner's license was valid for the purpose of third-party liability.

Since there was no breach of policy, the Court found the Insurance Company vicariously liable to indemnify the owner, negating the need for a "pay and recover" order.

Finally, the Court reviewed the interest rate, finding 7% more appropriate given current economic conditions and judicial precedents.

It held that a learner’s license for a motorcycle does not necessitate a licensed pillion instructor to maintain insurance coverage.

The Court modified the impugned judgment only regarding the interest rate, reducing it from 8% to 7% per annum from the date of filing until payment.

The Appellant was directed to satisfy the total calculated award within 45 days.