BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
The Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., – Appellant
Versus
Murugan & Another – Respondents
C.M.A(MD) No. 351 of 2019 & CMP (MD). No. 4399 of 2019
Decided On : 12-06-2023
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability - Section 173 - 5
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claimant had sustained injuries in a road accident and sought compensation. The insurance company contested the liability, citing the driver's lack of a valid driving license as a policy violation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver's lack of a valid driving license constituted a violation of policy condition and statutory violation. It held that the insurance company should first satisfy the award and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the insurance company, the violation of policy conditions, and the burden of proof regarding the driver's valid driving license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that non-holding of an effective driving license is not just a violation of the policy condition but also a statutory violation. It placed the burden on the owner of the vehicle to establish that the driver had a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time.
Final Decision: The court set aside the award of the Tribunal and directed the insurance company to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The quantum, apportionment, and interest awarded by the Tribunal were confirmed. The civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 21.12.2018 made in MCOP.No.171 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.)
1. The appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No. 171 of 2017 primarily on the ground of liability.
2. The injured claimant had contended that while he was driving a two wheeler at about 3.00 p.m on 25.01.2016, a tipper lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent coming from the opposite direction was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. In the said accident, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries and hence, he had prayed for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards compensation.
3. The owner of the offending vehicle namely the tipper lorry had remained exparte and the insurance company had filed a counter contending that the driver of the lorry was not having a badge to drive the heavy vehicle at the relevant point of time. They have further questioned the manner of accident and the quantum of compensation as prayed for.
4. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a finding that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the first respondent. The Tribunal had fixed the compensation at Rs.3,74,520/- and directed the insurance company to satisfy the award. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, admittedly, the tipper lorry is a heavy vehicle and the same was proved by filing Exhibit R2 insurance policy which indicates the G.V.W of the vehicle. He had further contended that he had filed Exhibit R1 to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle was not having endorsement or badge at the time of accident. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence. Hence, it is a clear case of violation of policy condition and the Tribunal ought not to have directed the insurance company to satisfy the said award instead the Tribunal ought to have permitted the insurance company to recover the award amount from the owner after satisfaction of the award.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi reported in 2010 ACJ 95 ( Tripurari Mandal Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., and another) to contend that a duty is cast upon the insurer to see that the driver was holding valid driving licence. Therefore, the burden is upon the insured person to establish that he had handed over the vehicle to the driver was holding valid driving licence.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 ACJ 1 (National Insurance Co.,Ltd., Vs. Swaran Singh and others) to contend that mere absence of an invalid driving licence at the relevant point of time is not by itself a defence available to the insurer against the insured person or a third party. 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 by a duly licensed driver. The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that in order to avoid liability, the insurance company must not only establish the available defence raised in the said proceedings but must also establish breach on part of the owner of the vehicle.
8. As per the said judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court cited supra, the burden of proof would be upon the insurance company to establish the same. The learned counsel had further relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civ
AI
The lack of a valid driving license by the driver constituted a violation of policy condition and statutory violation, placing the burden on the owner to establish the driver's valid license.
The Insurance Company may initially pay compensation to third-party claimants despite the driver lacking a valid license, with a right to recover from the vehicle's owner.
Liability of insurance company in cases where the driver does not possess a valid driving license under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'pay and recovery' principle in motor accident cases, allowing the Insurance Company to recover from the insured after satis....
Insurance companies cannot deny liability to compensate vehicle owners when premiums for personal accident coverage have been collected.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for compensation when the vehicle was driven without a valid license, based on the provisions of t....
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.