The duty of the insurer for satisfying judgments and awards in respect of third party claims and the liability of the insurer in case of a breach of policy conditions.

Judgment

THOMAS, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) IF a fake driving licence happened to be renewed by the statutory authorities, would the fakeness of the original document get legally sanctified? If it cannot, would the Insurance Company be liable to pay compensation in respect of a motor accident occurred while the vehicle was driven by a person holding such a sham licence? These are the main questions involved in these appeals.

( 3 ) AN accident occurred on 1-3-1993 when a truck, driven by the 8th respondent (Liaqat Ali) capsized. Three inmates of the vehicle died in the accident. Legal heirs of those three deceased persons preferred claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned (for short the claims Tribunal) as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act ). The owner of the vehicle as well as the driver were made parties, besides impleading the insurer (appellant Insurance Company) in the claims proceedings. It is admitted that the truck was then covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the appellant company. As we are now concerned only with the contentions of the appellant Insurance Company, that too restricted to the question relating to the driving licence held by the 8th respondent, we do not think it worth referring to the details of other pleadings set out by the claimants and the contending resistors.

( 4 ) THE appellant Insurance Company, in the written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal, pleaded inter alia that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence and hence there was breach of the policy condition and the corollary is that the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation to any one in respect of the accident referred to in the claim petitions.

( 5 ) THE insured owner of the vehicle as well as the driver 8th respondent relied on a document purporting to be a driving licence issued by the licensing authority (SDM, Paonta, Sirmaur District in Himachal Pradesh) bearing No. 1874-P/90. The document further shows that it was issued in favour of Liaqat Ali whose photo affixed thereon is admitted to be that of 8th respondent. That licence is claimed to have been renewed by the Licensing Authority, Rohru (H. P.) on 17-4-1993, for a period of three years. According to the insurance company, the said document is a fabricated one as no such licence was granted by the Licensing Authority (SDM), Paonta.

( 6 ) TO substantiate the contention appellant insurance company examined three witnesses. RW-2 was Superintendent in the office of the SDM, Paonta. He said that no such licence was issued from that office to a person called Liaqat Ali. He further said that no intimation whatsoever was recevied by the SDM, Paonta, that the licensing authority of Rohru (SDM) had renewed the licence No. 1874-P/90. But RW-3 a clerk in the office of the SDM, Rohru has stated that the licence bearing No. 1874-P/90 which stood in the name of Liaqat Ali was renewed by the SDM, Rohru on 17-4-1993, for a period of three years with effect from the date of its expiry. One Anil Chawla, legal officer of the appellant insurance company at Shimla, was examined as RW-4 and he said that on enquiry it was found that SDM, Paonta had not issued any driving licence to Liaqat Ali and hence the document produced by the 8th respondent as his driving licence is a forged document.

( 7 ) THE driver Liaqat Ali was not examined before the Claims Tribunal. But the owner of the truck gave evidence to the effect that he engaged the 8th respondent for driving the truck only after satisfying himself that R-8 had a valid licence. He admitted that the said satisfaction is based entirely on looking at the questioned document.

( 8 ) THE Claims Tribunal repelled the contention of the insurance company for which the following observations have been made :"evidently, it was for the New India Assurance Company to prove that the truck driver did not have valid driving licence on the d