Learner’s license constitutes a valid driving license for the purpose of insurance company liability.

On May 14, 2007, the claimant, Kiransinh Padhiyar, was riding a bicycle when he was struck by a motorcycle (Reg. No. GJ-06-CK-1682) driven negligently by opponent No. 1

The claimant sustained grievous injuries, specifically a fracture in the right clavicle and diminished vision in the right eye

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara, awarded Rs. 3,08,200/- with 9% interest

The Insurance Company appealed on the grounds that the claimant held only a learner's licence

the claimant filed cross-objections seeking enhanced compensation for future prospects and loss of amenities

Whether the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award when the driver/claimant held only a learner’s licence at the time of the accident

Whether the claimant is entitled to additional compensation toward future prospects and loss of amenities of life

The Court applied the principles regarding "future prospects" for a 23-year-old victim (adding 40% to income) as established in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439

Regarding the validity of a learner's licence, the Court relied on the landmark judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297, which held that a learner’s licence is a valid driving licence for the purpose of insurance liability

For "loss of amenities," the Court followed the precedent in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. (2023) 20 SCC 774

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s plea for exoneration, noting that under the Swaran Singh precedent, a learner’s licence is sufficient to fasten liability on the insurer

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal erred by not factoring in future prospects. Given the claimant was 23 years old, the Court added 40% to the assessed monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-, resulting in a revised income of Rs. 4,200/- and a future loss of income of Rs. 3,62,880/- using a multiplier of 18

the Court noted that the Tribunal failed to compensate for the permanent impact of diminished vision; thus, it awarded Rs. 25,000/- for "loss of amenities of life" based on the Mohd. Sabeer ruling

It held that a learner’s licence is a valid licence for insurance purposes

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 3,08,200/- to Rs. 4,36,880/-, awarding an additional sum of Rs. 1,28,680/- with 9% interest per annum

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks