Insurers have a primary obligation to satisfy compensation claims, even when the driver lacks a valid license, ensuring third-party claimants are protected.

JUDGMENT :

T.M. NADAF, J.

1. This appeal is by the claimants calling in question the judgment and award dated 18.12.2023 in MVC No.211/2021 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Raichur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the liability is fastened on the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 exonerating respondent No.2 – Insurance company on the premise that the driver of the Tipper did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident and also seek for enhancement of compensation. However, the counsel for appellants restrict this appeal only against liability whereby the insurance company exonerated absolutely.

2. The date of accident, death of Chandrashekar S/o Hulugappa in the road traffic accident, involvement of the vehicle are not in dispute. The dispute involved in this case is with respect of fastening of liability on the insured rather insurer only on the premise that the driver did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident.

3. Heard Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 though served remained unrepresented.

4. Sri Babu H. Metagudda taking this Court through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal vehemently submitted that the insurance company except examining its officer and producing some documents namely, legal notice, postal acknowledgment, policy copy has not led any evidence to show whether the driver of the Tipper did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. The entire evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the insurance company even according to him is on the basis of Police records wherein the police have filed charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC so also under Sections 3 , 181, 187 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) and under Sections 5 and 180 of M.V. Act against the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1. This is the ground for the witness to depose before the Court that the driver of the respondent No.1 did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.

5. Sri Babu H. Metagudda has taken this Court through the notice said to have been issued by the insurance company to respondent No.1, wherein the insurance company has taken a specific stand at para No.3 of legal notice at Ex.R.2 that the respondent No.1 handed over the Tipper to an un-licenced driver knowing fully well that the said driver was not holding/possessing any driving licence. However, the learned counsel submits that Ex.R.4, the postal acknowledgment depicts signature of one D. Savita, this clearly shows that there is no service of notice on respondent No.1. The notice was sent under RPAD. The acknowledgment ought to have contained the signature of respondent No.1 in order to show that there is service of notice. The insurance company has not explained this aspect of the matter as to who is said D.Savita, who has allegedly received notice and whether there is any information of receipt of said notice to respondent No.1 by said D.Savita. So also, whether the respondent No.1 has given any authorization to said D. Savita to receive any postal cover sent under RPAD on his behalf. Nothing of that sort has been produced by the insurance company so as to prove that there is infact service of notice on respondent No.1.

6. Further, he has submitted that mere filing of charge-sheet under the provisions of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT will not prove that respondent No.1 having knowledge,