Expired learner's licence does not amount to valid driving authority, and insurer liability fails on proved facts.

A person whose learner's licence has expired is not treated as duly licensed unless a valid driving licence is subsequently obtained in accordance with law. Because the appellant's learner's licence had expired before the accident and he failed to prove valid licensing, the insurer was not liable to indemnify him. The Court also held that omission to frame a separate issue on who was driving the tractor caused no prejudice, as the pleadings had raised the dispute and both lower courts had recorded a factual finding that the appellant himself was driving. The award against the appellant was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant, on the date of accident, could be treated as duly licensed despite his learner's licence having expired earlier, and whether the insurer remained liable to satisfy the award. (ii) Whether the failure to frame a specific issue on who was driving the tractor caused prejudice when the courts below had recorded a finding of fact on that aspect.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant, on the date of accident, could be treated as duly licensed despite his learner's licence having expired earlier, and whether the insurer remained liable to satisfy the award.

Analysis: A learner's licence is a licence for a limited period, but it is not the same as a valid and effective driving licence once it has expired. The statutory scheme requires a valid application and grant of licence for a person to be treated as duly licensed. On the date of accident, the appellant's learner's licence had expired and the application for a regular licence was made only later. The burden of establishing valid licensing, in the facts of the case, lay on the appellant because the matter was within his special knowledge. Since he failed to discharge that burden, the insurer was not bound to indemnify him.

Conclusion: The appellant was not duly licensed on the date of accident, and the insurer was not liable to reimburse him.

Issue (ii): Whether the failure to frame a specific issue on who was driving the tractor caused prejudice when the courts below had recorded a finding of fact on that aspect.

Analysis: The pleadings had squarely raised the dispute as to whether the appellant or another person was driving the vehicle. The appellant was aware of the case set up against him and led evidence on that question. Both the Tribunal and the High Court returned a factual finding that the appellant himself was driving the vehicle. In those circumstances, non-framing of a separate issue did not cause prejudice.

Conclusion: No prejudice resulted from the omission to frame a separate issue on driving of the vehicle.

Final Conclusion: The award against the appellant was sustained because he failed to establish a valid licence and the insurer's liability to indemnify was negatived on the proved facts.

Ratio Decidendi: A person whose learner's licence has expired and who has not yet obtained a valid driving licence is not duly licensed, and where the relevant facts are within the special knowledge of a party, the burden of proving them rests on that party.

---