Judgment:
ORDER
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.
1. This is an appeal by the original defendant who was aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff in O.S, No. 7 of 1983 by the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam.
2. It appears from the record that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of damages caused to his matador van claiming a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- from the defendant. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the matador van APS 4270 having purchased the same for Rs. 75,000/- by taking loan from the State Bank of India.
3. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the said vehicle was insured with the defendant company under the comprehensive policy No. 424730044 for a period of one year i.e., from 4-11-1979 to 3-11-1980. The plaintiff obtained a contract carriage (Taxi Cab) permit No. PC.23/8/79 from the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam for the period from 2-12-1979 to 19-12-1982. The plaintiff claims to be an Ex-Service man.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he obtained a temporary driving licence from the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam and subsequently 15 he obtained a permanent driving licence.
5. It is further alleged on that 1-1-1980 at about 5.30 p.m., while the plaintiff was driving the vehicle along with a duly licenced driver, the vehicle dashed against a lorry near Chilakapalem village as a result of which the plaintiff as well as the person in the van sustained serious injuries and the vehicle was completely damaged.
6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the said vehicle was damaged beyond repairs. The authorised surveyor of the defendant-company inspected the van in the month of January 1990 (sic. 1980) and a report to that effect was also submitted to the Insurance Company. The plaintiff filed the requisite forms claiming total damage of Rs. 75,000/- from the defendant. The defendant did not pay the damages as claimed by the plaintiff and therefore he was constrained to file a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 75,000/-.
30 7. It further appears from record that the defendant filed a written statement contending that the claim of the plaintiff is false, fictitious and not maintainable in law. It was denied by the Insurance Company that the vehicle in question was insured to the extent of Rs. 75,000/-. It was also denied that the vehicle was completely damaged and it was beyond repairs. It was emphatically pleaded by the defendant that the defendant Company has received fourteen bills issued by M/s Gopal Auto Service, Visakhapatnam for Rs. 20,784.15. Thus, it is alleged by the defendant that the allegation of the plaintiff that the vehicle was damaged completely, is totally false.
8. It is the further case of the defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any compensation as the plaintiff was not holding a permanent licence but he was holding a learner's licence. The driving of the insured vehicle by a person holding a learner's licence is not permissible under the contract and the defendant is not bound to pay any compensation if the accident occurs while a person holding a learner's licence drives the vehicle. With this pleading, it was prayed by the defendant to dismiss the suit with costs.
9. It further appears from record that on the strength of the plea put forward by the parties, the learned Judge framed necessary issues. On evidence led by both the parties, the learned Judge was pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 40,000/-.
10. Having aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower Court, the defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal.
11. The learned Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to certain observations made by the learned Judge in Judgment. The learned counsel pointed out from the judgment as well as from the Insurance Policy Ex. B-19 produced on record, that the vehicle was not insured to the extent of Rs. 75,000/-as alleged by the plaintiff in the suit. By looking to the judgment, and to the evidence of the defendant and also looking to the policy Ex. B-19, the learned Judge held that the vehicle was not insured to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- but it was insured only to the extent of Rs. 60,000/-. The said 15 finding appears to be factually correct.
12. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the policy of insurance is a simple contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle. Whatever terms which are agreed upon, they are binding on both the parties. My attention was also invited by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the policy which is under dispute does not cover the risk if the motor vehicle is being driven by the person holding the learner's licence. The terms stipulated in the contract rules are as under:
'Driver: Any of the following: The Insured/Any person provided he is under the employ of the insured and he is driving his vehicle on his order or with his permission, provided that the person driving holds a valid driving licence at the time of accident or had held a permanent licence ( other than a learner's licence) and is not disqualified from holding such licence.'
13. Taking into consideration the above position on facts, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is an admission on behalf of the plaintiff himself that he was not holding the permanent driving licence but he was holding only a learner's licence. Under these circumstances, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the suit as decreed by the learned Judge is bad in law and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge are liable to be set aside.
14. While rebutting the aforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff was holding a learner's licence and subsequently he was given a permanent licence by Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam and therefore, as per the definition contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, the plaintiff was competent to hold the permanent licence and therefore it must be held that the risk which is run by the plaintiff in driving the vehicle is also covered under the insurance policy.
15. This Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the reason being that insurance contract is a pure and a simple contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle. Whatever the terms having agreed upon between the parties have a binding force on both the parties. It is the legal position that every contract must be held to be valid unless it is shown that it is illegal, immaterial or opposed to public policy. In the present case, the Insurance Company had specifically put the stipulation that it was not prepared to run the risk if the vehicle in question meets with an accident while it was being driven by a person holding only a learner's licence. This stipulation is quite legal and it was accepted by the plaintiff who is the owner of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, this Court holds that the interpretation put forward by the learned Judge holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff, is bad in law. Taking the over all view of the matter, this Court holds that the learned Judge has erroneously decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Thus, the appeal stands allowed. The decree passed by the lower Court is hereby set aside. In effect, the suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs throughout.