SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(P&H) 1544

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mahesh Grover, J.
Libra Bus Service Pvt Ltd
Versus
Pushpa Devi
CM No. 25312 of 2006,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in cases of wilful breach of insurance policy and the significance of fake or invalid driving licenses in motor vehicle accidents.

Headnote:

Insurance Policy - Motor Vehicle Accident - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Swaran Singh, 2004 acj 1 (SC) - The court discussed the issue of wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy and the liability of the insurance company in case of fake or invalid driving license. The court referred to key legal provisions and their interpretations from the mentioned cases to determine the liability of the insurance company.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Libra Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the award granted in favor of the claimants due to a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal found the appellant guilty of wilful breach of the insurance policy for employing a driver with a fake driving license.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence and referred to legal provisions to conclude that the appellant had not committed any wilful breach of the insurance policy as due care was taken while employing the driver. The liability to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants was held to be that of the insurance company.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had committed a wilful breach of the insurance policy by employing a driver with a fake driving license.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretations of key legal provisions from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Swaran Singh, 2004 acj 1 (SC) to determine the liability of the insurance company in case of fake or invalid driving license.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and held that the liability to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants shall be that of the insurance company.

Judgment

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. The appellant, 101 of 22.10.1998. Libra Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. , the owner of the bus bearing registration No. PB 13-C 2. On 7.9.2005, a learned single Judge 4667 which was involved in a motor vehi- of this court passed the following order in cle accident occurred on 12.9.1998 causing the appeal: death of one Raj Kumar filed an appeal against common award dated 1.3.2002

"counsel for both the parties are agreed passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribu- that so far as claimants are concerned, nal, Sangrur (for short, the Tribunal) in qua them order passed regarding pay-M. A. C. Case Nos.72 of 25.11.1998 and ment of compensation be deemed to have become final and be not disturbed to that extent. Appellant filed this appeal against the award dated 1.3.2002 by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sang-rur (in short the Tribunal) vide which compensation amount of Rs.2,56,000 was granted in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 5, on account of death of Raj kumar. The Tribunal by giving finding that driver employed by the appellant was not having a valid driving licence, has fastened liability upon the appellant. It has been ordered that amount be first paid by the insurance company and then the insurance company be at liberty to recover the same from the owner/appellant. Counsel for the appellant states that on a very sketchy evidence led by insurance company, a finding has been given that the respondent No.6 was not possessing a valid driving licence when accident had taken place. By referring to ratio of judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), counsel states that it was incumbent upon insurance company, to prove further that the insured was guilty of wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy. Counsel further states that to the same effect is ratio of judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Swaran Singh, 2004 acj 1 (SC ). Confronting with this situation Mr. Pab-bi, very fairly states that matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case, and also ratio of judgments, referred to above, this appeal is allowed, award qua the claimants is maintained, however, to decide as to who is responsible for making the payment, matter is remitted to the Tribunal, to decide it afresh on the point as to whether the in-sured has committed any wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy or not. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 3.10.2005. The Tribunal need not to issue any notice of pending litigation to the claimants. "

2. Thereafter, the Tribunal disposed of the matter on 18.9.2006 and re-determined the issue which was entrusted to it regarding the insured (appellant) having committed wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy.

3. In its order dated 18.9.2006, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that appellant had produced fake documents Exhs. C1 and C2 as also the entries of the register were fabricated. The driving licence was also held to be fake and it was held that the appellant had committed a wilful breach of the insurance policy. Paras 15 and 16 of the above order are reproduced below:

" (15) Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the owner of the bus produced fake documents, Exhs. C1 and c2, on the file as well as the entry in the register shows that something has been removed from the top of the entry which is meant for pasting of photograph and address of respondent No.1 is not the same as find mention in the entry as well as it is not the case of respondent No.1 that he got ever issued the driving licence from Allahabad, it cannot be said from these documents as well as from the report, Exh. R4/a, which was prepared from the entries in the register, the respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence. As stated, when the insured, i. e. , respondent No.2 is guilty of producing fake documents in the court, the onus placed on the insurer that the insured was guilty of negligence an















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top