1. Motor accident death compensation — Appeal challenging findings on composite negligence and the exoneration of the insurer due to the driver's expired licence. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1707
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Francisca Luiza Rocha - Appellant
Vs.
K. Valarmathi - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.18367 of 2017 (Arising Out SLP (C) Nos. 21385 of 2015)
Decided On : 09-11-2017
Important Points
The absence of a valid driving license for the driver did not constitute a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, making the insurer liable to satisfy the compensation award.
Subject
Insurance Law - Motor Accident Compensation
Headnote
Insurance - Motor Accident - Compensation
Fact of the Case:
The claimants, family members of the deceased, appealed against the findings of the High Court regarding the negligence of the vehicles involved in the accident and the liability of the insurer and the owner of the offending truck.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the finding of composite negligence by the High Court and held that the absence of a valid driving license for the driver of the offending truck did not constitute a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, making the insurer liable to satisfy the compensation award.
Issues: Negligence of vehicles, Liability of insurer and owner, Validity of driving license
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the absence of a valid driving license for the driver did not constitute a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, making the insurer liable to satisfy the compensation award.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the modification that the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the award and seek recovery from the owner of the vehicle.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Karan Mathur, Ninad Laud, Anjuman Tripathy, Jayant Mohan
For the Respondents: Anil Nag, Abhilash Nag, Arun Singh, Y. Lokesh, Maibam N. Singh, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal, Ms. Payal Dayal
For the Appellants : Karan Mathur, Ninad Laud, Anjuman Tripathy, Jayant Mohan
For the Respondents: Anil Nag, Abhilash Nag, Arun Singh, Y. Lokesh, Maibam N. Singh, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal, Ms. Payal Dayal
Table of Contents
2. Whether composite negligence existed and whether an expired driving licence constitutes a fundamental breach of insurance policy terms exonerating the insurer. (Para 2 )
3. Findings of composite negligence are factual determinations; an expired licence does not automatically constitute a fundamental breach of insurance policy conditions. (Para 5 , 7 )
4. The expiration of a driving licence does not, by itself, constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of an insurance policy. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal disposed of; insurer held liable to satisfy the award with the option to seek recovery from the vehicle owner. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Can a finding of composite negligence be interfered with by a higher court?
A finding of composite negligence is a finding of fact recorded by the High Court on the basis of evidence on record, and the court is generally not inclined to interfere with such factual findings. (Para 5 )
7. Does an expired driving licence automatically constitute a fundamental breach of insurance policy terms?
No, the fact that a driver possessed a licence but its validity had expired does not, by itself, constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. (Para 7 )
8. Is an insurer liable to pay compensation if the driver's licence was expired?
Yes, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award and may subsequently seek recovery from the owner of the vehicle. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The claimants are the family members of the deceased-Julius D' Rocha, who have been awarded a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of compensation for the death of Julius D' Rocha in a motor accident that had occurred on 16.06.2008. They are in appeal challenging the twin findings of the High Court with regard to the absence of any composite negligence of the two vehicles involved and also in respect of the exoneration of the insurer (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) and making the owner of the offending truck in question solely liable to satisfy compensation awarded.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. We have considered the facts of the case and also the decision of this Court in 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others', (2004) 3 SCC 297 relied upon by the High Court in coming to the impugned conclusion.
5. Insofar as the finding of composite negligence is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the same as the said finding is a finding of fact recorded by the High Court on the basis of the evidence on record.
6. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, what we find from the materials on record is that the driving licence of the driver of the offending truck had lost its validity two months prior to the date of the accident.
7. In the present case the owner of the vehicle did not contest the proceedings to prove and establish that in spite of best efforts the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence was not known to him. What alone stood proved (by the Insurer) was that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. As the driver had a licence but validity of the same had expired, we are of the view that the conclusion of the High Court that the said fact, by itself, constitutes a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance is not correct.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, we will have to hold that the insurance company (M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) i.e. Respondent No.2 herein would be liable to satisfy the award and thereafter seek recovery, if so advised, from the owner of the vehicle (Mrs. K. Valarmathi) i.e. respondent No.1.
9. Consequently, with the aforesaid modification we dispose of the appeal in the above terms.
