Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Malabika Patir Taye W/o Late Manoj Kr Taye – Respondent
MAC App. No. 384 of 2016
Decided On : 05-09-2025
For the Appellants : S. Dutta, P. Dowerah, L. Sarma, M. Choudhury, S. Thakuria, N. Modi, Sidhant Dutta
For the Respondents: I. Sarma, M. Talukdar
An insurer can be directed to pay compensation even in cases of a driver lacking a valid license, with the possibility to recover from the vehicle owner, depending on the case's specifics.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Issue of driver's valid license - Supreme Court precedents establish that absence of valid driving license absolves insurer from indemnification - Tribunal's logic of no willful violation by vehicle owner criticized. (Paras 12-14)
(B) Insurance - Insurer may be directed to pay claim amount and recover from owner post-tribunal ruling on breach of contract - Emphasis on judicial discretion based on circumstances. (Paras 13)
(C) Liability - Claims for compensation can proceed against the insurer despite established breach of insurance conditions if the set principles are satisfied. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
The claimants, family members of deceased Manoj Kumar Taye, filed for compensation post-accident caused by a motorcycle insured by the appellant, contesting the license validity of the driver. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 39,82,000/- to the claimants.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's ruling was upheld, emphasizing the insurer's obligation despite claims of breach by the driver.
Issues: Whether the driver possessed a valid license and entitlement of claimants to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases of invalid licenses, insurers are not automatically exempt from liability, stressing judicial discretion in awarding compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed; insurer to pay compensation and seek recovery from vehicle owner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and claim basis. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. insurance company’s defense regarding license. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 3. outcome and disposal of appeal. (Para 9 , 15) |
| 4. supreme court rulings on insurance liability. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
1. Heard Mrs. M. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT challenging the judgment and award dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.3, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No.1629/2013.
3. On 15.08.213 at about 8.30 P.M., late Manoj Kumar Taye @ Manuj was going home on foot by the side of the National Highway No.53 at Rakut Koke (Laimekuri). At that time, the motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263 had hit him. He sustained serious injury and on the way to the hospital on 16.08.2013, he succumbed to his injuries. His wife, son and daughter have filed the claim petition seeking compensation.
4. The deceased Manoj Kumar Taye @ Manuj was 42 years old and was working as an Assistant Teacher in Tadunia L.P. School drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 22,721/-. The motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263 was insured by the present appellant Insurance Company vide Policy No.5300431/3020000/1509 that was valid up to 06.06.2014. The driver of the motorcycle had a valid driving licence and he did not contest the claim case.
5. The appellant Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing written statement. The only substantial plea taken by the Insurance Company was that the driver of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving licence.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following two issues:
I. Whether on 15.08.2013 at about 8.30 P.M. at Rakut Koke (Laimekuri) under Jonai Police Station, on the National Highway No.52, a motor vehicle accident has arisen due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263 on the part of its driver and the said accident has caused the death of Manoj Kumar Taye?
II. If so, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation for the death of Manoj Kumar Taye in the said accident and if so, what should be the quantum and who amongst the opposite parties, is/are liable to pay the compensation?
7. During the hearing, the claimants’ side only examined only 2(two) witnesses whereas the Insurance Company examined 3(three) witnesses.
8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court awarded an amount of Rs. 39,82,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition till full payment.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
10. According to the appellant Insurance Company, it examined the DTO, Nalbari to prove that the driving licence of the driver of the motorcycle being DL No.1432/NB/2008/MISC was issued in the name a person called Deep Kumar Baro, not in the name of Rajib Bori who was driving the motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263 at the time of the accident. The appellant further claimed that the learned Tribunal agreed that the driver Rajib Bori driving the motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263 did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
11. I have carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Tribunal and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1531 , has held that where there is no valid driving licence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. The Tribunal disagreed with the Insurance Company on the ground that there was no willful violation of any of the policy conditions by the owner of the vehicle.
13. On the point of an accident caused b
