1997 Supreme(Ker) 339
V.V.KAMAT, K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
United India Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jaimy – Respondent
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. Initiall
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
