The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the insurer to plead and prove the breach of specified conditions of the policy to avoid liability, as well as the principle that the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured unless the insured is at fault and guilty of a breach of the policy conditions.

Headnote:
Insurance Company - Liability for Accident - Motor Vehicles Act - S.149(2)(b)(ii), S.149(4) - The court considered the issue of liability of the insurance company in an accident case where the driver had no valid driving license. The court discussed the legal provisions under S.149(2)(b)(ii) and S.149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the requirement of the insurer to prove breach of specified conditions of the policy to avoid liability. The court also highlighted the insurer's right to recover the amount from the insured under S.149(4) in certain situations. The judgment confirmed the liability of the insurance company and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:

The claimant was injured in an accident involving a scooter insured by the appellant-insurance company. The appellant contended that the driver had no valid driving license, thus avoiding liability. The Tribunal found the insurance company liable and directed them to satisfy the compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the insurance company failed to prove that the insured had wilfully violated the policy conditions by allowing an unlicensed driver. The court emphasized the requirement of pleading and proving the breach of policy terms by the insurer to avoid liability. The judgment confirmed the liability of the insurance company and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company could avoid liability due to the driver's lack of a valid driving license. The court also considered the requirement of pleading and proving the breach of policy terms by the insurer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of the insurer to plead and prove the breach of specified conditions of the policy to avoid liability. The judgment highlighted the legal principle that the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured unless the insured is at fault and guilty of a breach of the policy conditions.
Final Decision: The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed, and the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) confirming the liability of the insurance company was upheld.

Judgement Key Points

The appeal by the insurance company challenges the tribunal's award holding the insurer liable for compensation in a motor accident claim. (!) [15000064110003]
The accident involved a cyclist claimant injured by a scooter owned by R1, driven by R2 (unlicensed), and insured with the appellant insurance company. [15000064110002]
The insurer admitted the policy but denied liability claiming the driver lacked a valid driving license at the time. (!) (!) [15000064110003]
The tribunal framed an issue on liability and found rash and negligent driving by the scooter driver. (!)
The insurer relied on a police charge sheet alleging no license but failed to independently prove the breach before the tribunal. (!) [15000064110005]
The insurer's application to compel production of the driving license was dismissed for non-prosecution. [15000064110005][15000064110012]
Even assuming no license, the insurer must plead and prove that the insured (owner) wilfully breached the policy by knowingly permitting an unlicensed driver. (!) [15000064110006]
The insurer's pleadings lacked specifics on the insured's wilful breach, failing the requirements under S.101 of the Evidence Act. (!) [15000064110013]
Statutory provisions under S.149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 require the insurer to satisfy third-party awards unless there is a proven breach of specified policy conditions under S.149(2)(b). [15000064110018][15000064110020]
Exclusions in insurance policies must be interpreted benevolently to protect third-party claimants, harmonizing with the legislation's purpose of ensuring compensation. [15000064110014][15000064110015][15000064110016]
Absent a breach by the insured under S.149(2)(b), the insurer remains liable to pay the claimant and may recover from the insured under S.149(4). [15000064110019][15000064110021][15000064110022]
The insurer bears a heavier burden under the 1988 Act to plead and prove defenses to avoid liability. [15000064110021]
The tribunal correctly held the insurer liable to indemnify the owner vicariously, with primary liability on the driver. [15000064110006][15000064110007]
The appeal is dismissed, upholding the tribunal's award directing the insurer to pay compensation. [15000064110022]

Judgment :-

V.V. Kamat, J.

This appeal by the Insurance Company came up before us after its admission to consider the application for stay in the shape of C.M.P. 1163 of 1997. Hearing the learned counsel we decided to hear the appeal on merits. This was in view of determination as to whether the appellant-insurance company can avoid liability on the ground as pleaded that there is no valid driving licence. We considered the factual matrix also with the help of the record and proceedings before us.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, we would like to record has shown her forensic ability and competence not only in regard to placing before us all necessary details of the factual matrix, but the learned counsel has taken pains to place before us all the relevant decisions, both of this court as well as of the apex court in the context. We consider that we would fail in our duty not to acknowledge and appreciate the labours of the counsel Mrs. P. A. Raziya. This is more so when the learned counsel for preparation persuaded us to accommodate her by postponing the hearing of the appeal not only on November 3,1997, but also on November 5,1997 and today we heard the counsel.

3. Initially, the necessary and relevant factual matrix would need a spread over. The incident occurred on October 30,1992 at about 7.30 pm when the" claimant was riding a cycle through Aluva- Munnar road to reach a place known as Thangalam. At this place a scooter - KL 7-A-1676 - undisputedly owned by one Jomy Paul (R1) and driven by one Kunjubava (R2) and insured with the appellant (R3) gave a dash and hit to the cycle. This was, it was averred, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter. The claimant was a student of commerce and in the process suffered in his studies apart from sustaining injuries. He was aged 19 years and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,96,000/- in the petition before the M.A.C.T., Muvattupuzha.

4. As usual, the driver as well as the owner stayed away from the proceedings before the Tribunal, remaining ex parte. The appellant (R3) admitted insurance of the vehicle. It is pleaded that the driver had no valid driving licence and therefore there is no liability as a result of the violation of the terms of the policy.

5. To be precise, the pleading in the context is as follows:

"The insured ie. the 1st respondent has not so far produced the vehicular records or driving licence for verification. Hence this respondent denies the existence of valid driving licence to the IInd respondent at the material time."

It would be seen that in regard to this question in the impugned award, issue No. 3 was framed by the Tribunal as to who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In paragraph 8 of the award the Tribunal, after recording a finding of rashness and negligence in driving the scooter by Kunjubava (R2), has observed that insurance of the vehicle was admitted and in regard thereto the contention is that there is no valid driving licence and therefore, the insured-the owner (R1) had violated the conditions of the policy resulting into the situation that the appellant-insurance company could not be held liable.

6. In the process of discussion of this aspect the Tribunal has observed in the following manner: -

"Insurance of the vehicle was admitted. But they contended that the 1st respondent had no valid driving licence and the insured had violated the condition of the policy and so they are not liable. Counsels for the 3rd respondent relied on the gist of the charge sheet in Ext. A-10 to the effect that police had registered a petty case against the owner of the vehicle for allowing a person who had no valid driving licence and against the driver for driving the Vehicle without driving licence and argues they are not liable."

The Tribunal has observed that it is true that the police had submitted a charge on the ground that the driver had no driving licence and the owner had allowed a person who had no valid driving licence to drive

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(Ker) 339

Judges : V.V.KAMAT,K.A.ABDUL GAFOORUnited India Insurance Company Ltd. - AppellantVersusJaimy - RespondentCase No : M.F.A. No. 308 of 1997Decided On : 11/12/1997Advocates Appeared : Siby Mathew & P.A. Raziya For Appellant T.K. Koshy & Ceaser V. Pillai For Respondents

Cases Referred (1)

Judges : V.V.KAMAT,K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Jaimy - Respondent
Case No : M.F.A. No. 308 of 1997
Decided On : 11/12/1997
Advocates Appeared :
Siby Mathew & P.A. Raziya For Appellant T.K. Koshy & Ceaser V. Pillai For Respondents