Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, JJ.
Gurmail Singh @ Gurmer @ Gurnal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 12065 of 2018 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13472 of 2015]
Decided On : 13-12-2018
Driving Licence - Insurance Claim - The court modified the directions issued by the High Court, allowing the claimant driver to recover the amount from the insurer and giving liberty to the insurer to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The driver was unable to produce the driving licence at the time of the accident, and the insurer had taken a plea that the driver was not holding a driving licence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver failed to produce the licence or duplicate copy, and his statement that he lost the licence at the time of the accident did not inspire confidence. The court modified the directions issued by the High Court, allowing the claimant driver to recover the amount from the insurer and giving liberty to the insurer to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
Issues: Proper issues were not framed by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. The driver failed to produce the driving licence or duplicate copy.
Ratio Decidendi: In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, plea taken as well as evidence adduced, it was incumbent upon the driver to produce the licence or duplicate copy, which he failed to do.
Final Decision: The court modified the directions issued by the High Court, allowing the claimant driver to recover the amount from the insurer and giving liberty to the insurer to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.
3. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court, though, it is correct that proper issues were not framed by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. Be that as it may, however, the Insurer had taken a plea in the reply that the Driver was not holding the Driving Licence. The Driver was also cross-examined at length, but he was not able to produce the Driving Licence on the ground that at the time of accident, it was lost. Witness was also examined as to hold the Insurer to discharge negative burden as to absence of Driving Licence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, plea taken as well as evidence adduced, it was incumbent upon the Driver to produce the Licence or duplicate copy of the same that has not been filed either in the High Court or even in this Court in the appeal filed by the Driver. He could have obtained a duplicate copy and ought to have produced it in case he possessed the Driving Licence. His statement that he lost the same at the time of accident, does not inspire confidence.
4. In the above circumstances, as the vehicle was admittedly insured, it would be appropriate to modify the directions issued by the High Court. As the vehicle was insured, we permit the claimant Driver to recover the amount from the Insurer and give liberty to the Insurer to recover the same, in turn, from the owner of the vehicle.
5. To the above extent, the order passed by the High Court is modified. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
