Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 338
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Gobichettypalayam
Versus
K.N. Gurunathan & Another
C.M.A.No.215 of 2001
Decided On : 29-01-2007
For the Appellant:K.S. Narasimhan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, T. Murugamanickam, Advocate.
The absence of a valid driving license or driver disqualification is not a defense for the insurer, who must prove the insured's negligence to avoid liability.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims - United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Gian Chand [1997 ACJ 1065], Natwar Parikh Co. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka [2006 ACJ 1], National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Swaran Singh [2004 ACJ 1], Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2006 ACJ 2161]
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained a leg fracture in a motor accident and sought compensation. The Insurance Company appealed, arguing that the driver had no valid license to drive a Heavy Motor Vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the driver had a valid license to drive a Tractor, and the Insurance Company failed to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence. The judgment of the Tribunal was confirmed, and the compensation amount was sustained.
Issues: Validity of driver's license, Insurance Company's liability, Quantum of compensation
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on precedents to establish that the absence of a valid driving license or disqualification of the driver is not a defense available to the insurer. The insurer must prove the insured's negligence to avoid liability.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the claimant was permitted to withdraw a portion of the compensation amount.
Aggrieved by the award dated 11.07.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.406 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Bhavani, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal.
2. In an accident, which occurred on 25.04.1994, the first respondent/claimant sustained fracture in his leg. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the second respondent was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.72,724/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.
3. Heard Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. T. Murugamanickam, learned counsel for the first respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that even in the claim petition, the vehicle was described as "Articulated vehicle" – Tractor and Trailer and it is evident from Ex.P5, Motor Vehicles Inspection Report, that the vehicle was a Heavy Motor Vehicle. Considering the above evidence, the Tribunal ought to have arrived at a conclusion that the driver had no valid licence to drive Heavy Motor Vehicle and exonerated the appellant-Insurance Company from their liability. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the decision of the Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Gian Chand and others [1997 ACJ 1065].
5. Before the Tribunal, the Assistant Administrative officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and he deposed that the offending vehicle insured with the insurance company was a Heavy Motor Vehicle. Ex.B1 – Policy and Ex.B2 – Investigation report were marked on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company. It is evident from Ex.B2, Investigation Report that the driver of the offending vehicle was issued with Class "C" driving licence to drive a Tractor.
6. The respondent/claimant deposed that on 25.04.1994, when he was standing on the left side of the road, the second respondents tractor hit him and he sustained grievous injuries. A compliant was lodged against the driver of the tractor. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report, dated 25.04.1994. It is evident from Ex.P3, Judgment copy of the criminal Court that the driver of the tractor also admitted his guilt and paid the fine. It is admitted by the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was only Tractor and that the driver had a valid licence to drive Tractor. The manner of accident and the nature of injures were not disputed.
7. In a decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Gian Chand, reported in 1997 ACJ 1083, the insured had handed over the vehicle for being driver by an unlicensed driver, the Apex Court held that the Insurance Company would get exonerated from its liability to meet the claims of third party on account of vehicular accident accused by such unlicensed driver.
8. The Supreme Court in Natwar Parikh Co. Ltd., v. Stateof karnataka and others reported in 2006 ACJ 1, has held that when the Tractor and Trailor combined would constitute "a goods carriage" and necessitate a permit for its use on road. The Apex Court further held that the State is empowered to levy tax on all the vehicles which are designed and manufactured for use on the road. The case on hand relates to claim for compensation and therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.
9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Swaran Singh, reported in 2004 ACJ 1, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 102 (iii) is as follows:
"The breach of policy conditions, 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
