Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Namakkal District - Appellant
Versus
P.M. Moideen @ Mohammed - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 651 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 06-11-2020
For the Appellant :S. Vadivel, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the driver does not possess a valid driving license, and the owner's failure to verify the license constitutes a breach of policy conditions.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurance Company - 173 - 2020 SCC Online SC 769, 2004 SCC 297, 2020 SCC 49, 2015 TAC 52, 2015 ALR 275, 2012 ACJ 1891 - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act and referred to various judgments to establish that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the driver does not possess a valid driving license. The court held that the owner of the vehicle must verify the driver's license and failure to do so constitutes a breach of policy conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an insurance company, challenged the liability fixed on them by the judgment and decree made in a motor accident claims tribunal. The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in an accident caused by the negligent riding of a TVS Scooty. The appellant denied liability, citing the lack of a valid driving license for the rider and violation of policy conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rider did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident and that the owner of the vehicle had breached policy conditions by allowing the rider to operate the vehicle. Citing relevant judgments, the court held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the insurance company in a motor accident claim, specifically concerning the possession of a valid driving license by the driver and the breach of policy conditions by the vehicle owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant judgments, establishing that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the driver does not possess a valid driving license and that the owner's failure to verify the license constitutes a breach of policy conditions.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The owner of the vehicle was directed to deposit the awarded amount to the claimant.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2010, made in M.C.O.P. No.1009 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No.1, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Erode.)
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the liability fixed on them by the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2010, made in M.C.O.P. No.1009 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No.1, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Erode.
2. The appellant is the 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.1009 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No.1, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Erode. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 21.09.2008.
3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, when the 1st respondent was walking on the Kundrathoor road, while passing by Ramakrishna Fancy Store, the 2nd respondent rider of the TVS Scooty bearing Registration No. TN-33-Q-6303 belonging to the 3rd respondent rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the 1st respondent and caused the accident. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the 2nd respondent, rider of the TVS Scooty. In the accident, the 1st respondent suffered multiple injuries and fracture. For the injuries suffered by him, the 1st respondent claimed compensation against the respondents 2 and 3 and appellant, as driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant, the 2nd respondent, rider of the TVS Scooty did not ride the vehicle rash and negligently. At the time of accident, the 2nd respondent did not possess valid driving license. For violation of policy conditions, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the 3rd respondent, owner of the vehicle. In any event, the 1st respondent has to prove his age, avocation and income, injuries suffered, disability sustained and treatment taken to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, examined one Doctor as P.W.2 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The appellant examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4.
7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the 2nd respondent, rider of the TVS Scooty belonging to the 3rd respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.84,100/- as compensation to the 1st respondent at the first instance and recover the same from the 3rd respondent, owner of the vehicle.
8. Challenging the liability fixed on them by the award dated 19.10.2010, made in M.C.O.P. No.1009 of 2008, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the 2nd respondent, rider of the TVS Scooty rode the vehicle without any license. The Tribunal failed to see that the appellant has laid charge sheet against the 2nd respondent under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act for not possessing Driving License. The 2nd respondent also has admitted her guilt and paid fine before the Criminal Court. The appellant sent registered notice to the respondents 2 and 3 to produce driving license. The respondents 2 and 3 failed to produce the driving license of 2nd respondent. The appellant discharged their burden of proving their de
