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

2026 Supreme(MP) 737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
HIRDESH, J.
 
Kamalkishore Baghel - Appellant
Versus 
Uday Singh And Others – Respondents 
MISC. Appeal No. 999 of 2009 with MISC. Appeal No. 1070 of 2009
Decided On : 05-01-2026
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi with Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Shri N.S. Pal, Advocate, Shri K.S. Rochlani, Advocate.

An insurer remains liable for compensation despite a fake driving licence if the owner exercised reasonable care by verifying the licence's appearance and driver competence, unless the insurer proves willful negligence or knowledge of the fraud by the owner.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 149(2)(a)(ii) and 173 - Liability of insurer in case of fake driving licence - Onus of proving willful breach of insurance policy conditions lies on the insurer - If an employer verifies a driving licence and it appears genuine on its face, and the driver is found competent, the employer is not expected to further investigate the authenticity of said licence with the licensing authority - Insurer cannot avoid liability unless it is proved that the insured was guilty of negligence or failed to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the policy condition regarding the employment of a duly licensed driver. (Paras 10, 11)

(B) Compensation - Quantum - Where the Tribunal has assessed the income and awarded a fair and just amount of compensation, no interference is warranted in the appellate stage. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
A claimant sustained permanent disability in an accident involving a dumper that overturned due to rash and negligent driving. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,90,000/-. Two appeals were filed: one by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and another by the owner of the vehicle seeking exoneration from liability, contending that the driver possessed a licence that appeared genuine and had been renewed by the relevant authority.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the owner had checked the driving licence at the time of employment and the licence appeared genuine. There was no evidence of willful negligence by the owner. The court further found that the assessment of income and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal were just and proper.

Issues: Whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner when the driver's licence is found to be non-existent in records but appeared genuine to the owner at the time of hiring, and whether the compensation awarded to the claimant was adequate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while an employer must verify if a driver has a licence, they are not required to conduct inquiries with the regional transport office to ascertain the veracity of the licence if it appears genuine and the driver is competent. The insurer is liable unless it proves the insured had notice that the licence was fake or invalid yet permitted the person to drive.

Result: Miscellaneous Appeal (MA No. 1070/2009) filed by the owner allowed; Insurance Company held liable to indemnify; Miscellaneous Appeal (MA No. 999/2009) filed by the claimant dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • tort
    • motor vehicle accidents
      • compensation (Para 3, 14)
  • insurance law
    • motor vehicle insurance
      • liability of insurer
        • driving licence conditions (Para 10, 11, 12, 13)
  • practice and procedure
    • appeals
      • compensation appeals (Para 4, 5, 6, 13, 14)
    • evidence (Para 8, 9)

Table of Contents

1. Motor vehicle accident causing injury — Compensation claim — Dispute over genuineness of driving licence. (Para 3 , 8 )

2. Claimant sought enhanced compensation; owner disputed accident, quantum, and licence genuineness; insurer supported award and opposed both appeals. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )

3. Owner's appeal allowed and owner exonerated; insurer to indemnify claimant; claimant's appeal dismissed; compensation unchanged. (Para 13 , 14 )

4. Can an insurer avoid liability under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) merely by showing that the driver held a fake or invalid driving licence?

No. Mere absence, fake or invalid licence, or disqualification is not itself a defence against the insured or third parties; the insurer must prove the insured was negligent and failed to exercise reasonable care. (Para 10 , 11 )

5. What is the insured owner's duty when hiring a driver who produces a driving licence?

The owner must check that the driver holds a licence and be satisfied of competence; if the licence appears genuine, no further verification with the licensing authority is required unless there is reason for suspicion or notice that it is fake. (Para 11 , 12 )

6. Who bears the onus to prove willful breach of an insurance condition based on a fake licence?

The insurer bears the onus of proving that the insured did not take adequate care or was guilty of willful breach of the insurance policy or contract. (Para 11 )

7. Is enhancement of compensation justified where the Tribunal's assessment of income and award is just and proper?

No; if the monthly income assessment and compensation are fair and just, there is no need for interference or enhancement. (Para 14 )

ORDER :

HIRDESH, J.

Both the appeals arise out of the common award dated 20.04.2009 passed by the Second Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (in short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 02/2006, whereas MA No. 999/2009 has been preferred by claimant Kamal Kishore Baghel under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground of inadequacy of compensation, seeking enhancement thereof, while MA No. 1070/2009 has been filed by appellant/owner under the same provision, seeking exoneration from the liability fastened upon him by the Claims Tribunal.

2. Since both the appeals challenge the same award, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

3. Necessary facts for adjudication of both the appeals in short are that in the intervening night of 8th and 9th August, 2004, the claimant was travelling in the dumper bearing Registration No. MP 07 G-5684, which was being driven by Udai Singh (driver). The said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which it turned turtle, causing an accident. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries to his leg. After the occurrence of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle absconded from the spot, leaving the vehicle at the place of occurrence. The injured claimant was thereafter taken to Civil Hospital, Etawah, where he was provided primary medical treatment and was subsequently admitted for further treatment. The matter was reported to Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, and an offence bearing Crime No. 56/2004 was stated to have been registered. After investigation and other formalities, the police filed a charge sheet. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. Non-applicants therein filed their written statement and denied all averments. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and after considering the evidence of both parties, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,90,000/- in favour of the claimant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant contends that the Claims Tribunal has committed a grave error in awarding the amount of compensation. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side, and hence, it is prayed that the compensation amount be enhanced and a just and reasonable amount of compensation may be awarded.

5. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the claimant has failed to establish the factum of the accident, and that he was injured in the said accident, as no police report or investigation report has been filed. On the contrary, the owner of the offending vehicle has specifically come forward with the allegation that the claimant did not sustain any injury in the turn down of the dumper, nor did he receive any injury in the road accident. Even otherwise, the Tribunal has awarded compensation which is not just and proper. The assessment of the income of the claimant made by the Claims Tribunal is also on the higher side and unreasonable. Hence, the award deserves to be modified. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly given a finding that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a genuine driving licence, while the said licence was renewed four times by R.T.O. Gwalior. Additionally, the statement of Bhagwan Singh (clerk of RTO Dholpur) is also suspicious, as he says that there was no issuance of driving licences from serial numbers 4100 to 4999, and ultimately, the next driving licence no. 5000 was issued. However, there was no explanation as to why the said numbers of licences were not issued. The Claims Tribunal gave a finding that the driving licence is fake, which is not supported by law. Hence, the amount of compensation deserves to be shifted towards the insurance company. Witness Sajal Pandey, Clerk of RTO Gwalior, very specifically stated that the driving licence of driver Udai Singh is genuine and he endors

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top