IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Nek Mohd., S/o. Abdul Mazid & Ors. - Respondents
Mac App No. 06 of 2020
Decided On : 29-02-2024
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - 3, 10(2), 14(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the requirement of a valid driving license, the definition of a transport vehicle, and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The court also highlighted the burden of proof regarding the validity of the driving license and the liability of the insurance company in case of a gratuitous passenger.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation due to injuries sustained in a vehicular accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant, holding the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant proved the accident and the injuries sustained, while the Insurance Company's evidence regarding the driver's valid driving license and the violation of insurance policy terms was not sufficient. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the occurrence of the accident, entitlement to compensation, validity of the driving license, violation of insurance policy terms, and the claimant's status as a gratuitous passenger.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proving the validity of the driving license lies with the owner and driver, and the liability of the insurance company depends on the status of the passenger. The court also emphasized the definition of a transport vehicle and the terms of the insurance policy.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's award of compensation to the claimant and the liability of the Insurance Company.
ORDER :
1. In the instant appeal, award dated 23.11.2019 (for short “the impugned award”) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathua (for short “the Tribunal”) in the claim petition titled as “Nek Mohd Vs. Gulam Abas alias Mohd Abas & Ors.” has been thrown challenge to by the Insurance Company – appellant herein.
2. Facts emanating from the record would reveal that the respondent 1 herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident having taken place on 02.09.2011 at Ganeer Bouli near Mahanpur at Dhar Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. JK02H/5789.
In the claim said petition, the claimant/respondent 1 herein besides impleading the driver of the offending vehicle as respondent, also impleaded the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company – appellant herein with whom the offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident.
3. Upon entertaining the claim petition, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents in response to which the respondents 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did neither appear not contest the claim petition, however, the respondent 3 – Insurance Company appeared and filed its objections to the claim petition whereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
(ii) If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation and to what extent? (OPP)
(iii) Whether the offending vehicle was being used in contravention of registration certificate and in violation of terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance? (OPR-3)
(iv) Whether the driver of the alleged vehicle did not possess valid/effective driving license to drive the particular class of vehicle? (OPR-3)
(v) Relief. (OP Parties)
4. The claimant/respondent 1 herein in order to prove the issues (i) & (ii), onus whereof to prove the same was put upon him by the Tribunal besides appearing himself as a witness also examined witnesses, namely, Gulam Haider, Qamar Din and Dr. Vikas Padha whereas the Insurance Company – appellant herein examined two witnesses in support of the issue, onus whereof was laid upon it, namely, Sanjay Kumar – Junior Assistant in the Office of ARTO, Udhampur and Surinder Kumar Bhat being Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal upon adjudication of the claim petition passed the impugned award holding the claimant/respondent 1 herein entitled to the compensation amounting to Rs.3,73,000/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of its payment by the respondent 3/appellant herein while holding the Insurance Company – appellant herein liable to indemnify the insured owner of the offending vehicle.
6. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds urged in the instant appeal:-
a. Motor cycle without gear,
b. Motor cycle with gear,
c. Invalid carriage,
d. Light Motor Vehicle
e. Transport vehicle
f. Road R
AI
An insurance company is not liable to indemnify an owner-driver for injuries sustained due to their own negligence under a standard third-party motor insurance policy, as such policies only cover thi....
The burden of proof regarding a driver's valid licence lies with the vehicle's owner, absolving the Insurance Company from liability if not established.
The burden of proof rests with the Insurance Company to establish breaches of the insurance policy and driving license requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of liability under the Motor Vehicle Act and the Workmen Compensation Act based on driving license, permit conditions, and in....
A valid light motor vehicle license includes transport vehicles, and insurers cannot deny liability without proving negligence by the vehicle owner.
The insurance company is exonerated from liability for compensation as the driver lacked a valid driving license, establishing a breach of policy conditions.
A driver holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle can drive a transport vehicle of the same class without any separate endorsement, as per the settled legal position.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.