Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Sh. Navdeep Singh and another - Appellants
Versus
Inder Singh and another - Respondents
FAOs (MVA) No. 459 of 2012 a/w FAO No. 127 of 2013
Decided On : 09-12-2016
For the Appellants : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Mr. Vipan Rajta.
For the Respondents: Mr.Vipan Rajta, Mr. Aman Sood, Mr. G.S. Rathore.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer must prove the breach of policy condition regarding the driver's disqualification or invalid driving license to avoid liability, and the concept of 'fundamental breach' must be applied in determining liability.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims - Validity of Driving License - Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2) - Section 149(2)(a) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii] - The court discussed the validity of the driving license and its impact on the liability of the insurer. It referred to Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 149(2)(a)(ii), and emphasized that the breach of policy condition regarding the driver's disqualification or invalid driving license must be proved by the insurer to avoid liability. The court cited the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & others, and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company to establish the insurer's burden of proof and the concept of 'fundamental breach' in determining liability. The court concluded that the driver had a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, and the insurer was liable to satisfy the award.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla H.P., in a motor accident claim case. The owner and driver questioned the liability imposed on them, while the claimant questioned the adequacy of compensation. The court determined two points: (i) whether the Tribunal rightly discharged the insurer from liability, and (ii) whether the awarded amount was adequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver had a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, and the insurer was liable to satisfy the award. Additionally, the court held that the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation for the period of bed rest, and accordingly modified the impugned award.
Issues: The issues before the court were: (i) the liability of the insurer in discharging the owner and driver from liability, and (ii) the adequacy of the awarded compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the determination that the driver had a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, and the insurer was liable to satisfy the award. Additionally, the court found that the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation for the period of bed rest.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the owner and driver was allowed, and the impugned award was modified to hold the insurer liable to satisfy the award. The claimant's appeal was also allowed, and the compensation was enhanced, with directions for the insurer to deposit the amount within eight weeks.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 28.5.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in MAC No. 53-S/2 of 2008, titled Inder Singh versus Sh. Navdeep Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.53000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum with cost assessed at Rs.5000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and owner and driver were saddled with the liability, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
2. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment.
3. Owner Navdeep Singh and driver Jagdish Kumar, by the medium of FAO No. 459 of 2012 has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling him with the liability and exonerating the insurer and claimant Inder Singh, by the medium of FAO No. 127 of 2013, has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation, on the grounds taken in their memo of appeals.
4. The factum of accident, rashness and negligence is not in dispute. Thus two points arise for determination in these appeals.
(i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly discharged the insurer from the liability?
(ii) Whether the amount awarded is adequate?
5. Both these points are to be answered against the insurer for the following reasons.
6. The driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence which was also renewed. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in making discussion in paras 25 and 26 of the impugned award. This Court has already determined the issue in FAO No.172 of 2006 decided on 7.3.2014 titled Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others.
7. Ext. RW1/A is driving licence, perusal of which does disclose that it was renewed on 13.6.2006 up to 11.6.2009 thus, was valid one.
8. Even otherwise, if a licence was not valid or was otherwise not effective, it was for the appellant-insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid licence and the owner has committed willful breach.
9. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment hereinbelow:
“105. .....................
(i) .........................
(ii) ........................
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them.
(v).........................
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of drivin
