1. Claim for compensation — Insurance Company's liability — Validity of driver's license — Section 96(2(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1104
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Wadhwa : Sujata V.Manohar
Rukmani
Versus
New India Assurance Company
Case No. : 5557 of 1997
Date of Decision : 8/14/97
Under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the burden of proving a driver's lack of a valid licence rests on the insurance company; mere non-production of the licence to a police officer is insufficient evidence to discharge this burden.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 96(2)(b)(ii) - Insurance claim - Validity of driving licence - Burden of proof - Where the insurance company contends that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence, the burden is on the insurance company to establish the same - Evidence of a police officer stating that the driver did not produce the licence upon demand is not sufficient to discharge this burden - Failure to summon the driver or produce records from the licensing authority indicates that the burden has not been discharged. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
An insurance company was absolved of liability by the High Court on the ground that the driver of the vehicle lacked a valid driving licence. The High Court relied on the testimony of a police officer who investigated the accident and stated that the driver had failed to produce a licence upon demand during the enquiry.
Findings of Court:
The evidence provided by the police officer is insufficient to prove the absence of a valid licence. The insurance company failed to summon the driver or produce official records from the licensing authority to substantiate its claim.
Issues: Whether the testimony of a police officer regarding the non-production of a driving licence is sufficient to discharge the burden of proof cast upon the insurance company under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving that a driver did not possess a valid licence lies with the insurance company. Mere failure of the driver to produce the licence before a police officer during an investigation, without supporting evidence from the licensing authority or the driver's own testimony, does not satisfy this legal burden.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Insurance Company discharged the burden of proving that the driver of the vehicle lacked a valid driving license. (Para 2 )
3. Testimony of a police officer stating a license was not produced is insufficient to prove its absence without RTA records or summoning the driver. (Para 3 )
4. To discharge the burden under Section 96(2(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Insurance Company must provide sufficient evidence, such as RTA records. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Tribunal order restored. (Para 3 )
6. Who bears the burden of proof regarding the validity of a driver's license under Section 96(2(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?
The burden is on the Insurance Company to establish that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. (Para 2 )
7. Is the testimony of a police officer stating that a driver failed to produce a license sufficient to prove the absence of a valid license?
No, such evidence is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof, especially when the Insurance Company fails to produce records from the Road Transport Authority or summon the driver. (Para 3 )
8. What evidence is considered sufficient for an Insurance Company to prove a driver lacked a valid license?
Sufficient evidence includes producing official records from the Road Transport Authority or summoning the driver of the vehicle to testify. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE Insurance Company has been absolved from liability in respect of the claim for compensation by the High court on the ground that the driver had no valid licence. The High court has noted that under Section 96(2(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, if the Insurance Company contends that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence, the burden is on the Insurance Company to establish it. The High court, however, came to the conclusion that this burden had been discharged by the Insurance Company.
(3) WE have seen the only evidence which the Insurance Company produced in support of the plea. This is the evidence of Inspector of Police who investigated the accident. In his evidence. Public Witness 1 who was the Inspector of Police, stated in his examination-in-chief, "My enquiry revealed that the 1st respondent did not produce the licence to drive the abovesaid scooter. The 1st respondent even after my demand did not submit the licence since he was not having it." In his cross-examination he has said that it is the Inspector of Motor Vehicles who is required to check whether the licence is there but he had not informed the Inspector of Motor Vehicles that the 1st respondent was not having a licence since he thought it was not necessary. In our view, this evidence is not sufficient to discharge the burden which was cast on the Insurance Company. It did not summon the driver of the vehicle. No record from the Road Transport Authority has also been produced. In these circumstances, the Insurance Company has not discharged the burden cast upon it under Section 96(2(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The impugned order of the High court is, therefore, set aside and the order of the tribunal is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
