Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19827
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C.M. POONACHA, J
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD. – Appellant
Versus
MR. AKMAL PASHA – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5986 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAVISHANKAR C.R.
For the Respondents: SRI. R.CHANDRASHEKAR
Insurers must prove breaches of insurance policy terms to avoid liability for compensation claims; mere allegations are insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 3(1) and 181 - Insurance liability - Insurer contested liability based on claim of driver lacking a valid driving licence; the court upheld previous rulings that the burden of proof lies with the insurer in proving such breach. (Paras 10-12, 16, 18)
(B) Appeals - Allowance of appeal leads to dismissal of the Insurer’s liability for compensation, effectively mandating payment be made by the vehicle owners. (Paras 17-18)
Facts of the case:
Insurer contests liability for compensation awarded due to alleged lack of driving license of the charged driver, while claimant argues insufficient evidence was presented to prove such breach.
Findings of Court:
Court reaffirmed previous principles stating insurers must prove breaches are fundamental to the cause of the accident to avoid liability; deemed the insurer failed to demonstrate this.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding of liability against the insurer was just and proper.
Ratio Decidendi: Insurance companies are held to a burden of proof regarding claims of license validity; mere allegation is insufficient without substantial evidence.
Result: The appeal is allowed and the insurer is exonerated from compensation payment, redirecting liability to vehicle owners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurer challenges tribunal's award. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegation of driver lacking license as basis for denial of liability. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal interpretation of liability conditions on insurer. (Para 7 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. judicial analysis affirming tribunal's findings on liability. (Para 11 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. final judgment directs compensation liability. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the Insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 08.05.2013 passed in MVC.No.2353/2011 by the XVI Additional Judge, MACT, Bengaluru1.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 24.10.2010 when the claimant was standing in front of his house, the driver of a car came in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant causing the accident in question. The claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident, arraying the owners of the car as respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the Insurer as Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the claim proceedings. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor was examined as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P18 were marked in evidence. The official of the insurer was examined as RW.1. Exs.R1 to R6 were marked in evidence. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 08.05.2013 allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `2,49,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum and directed respondent No.3 - Insurer to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the Insurer.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurer vehemently contended that the charge sheeted driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident and hence the insurer ought not to be held liable having regard to the breach committed of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. He further submitted that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the vehicle under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC as well as, under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving the insured vehicle without a driving licence and the accused had pleaded guilty before the criminal Court for the same. Hence, the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation awarded.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the insurer has failed in demonstrating that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive the insured vehicle by adducing adequate evidence to demonstrate that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence. He further submits that, the insurer has failed in demonstrating that the breach alleged was so fundamental that it contributed to causing the accident. Hence, he submits that the judgment of the Tribunal was just and proper and claimant being a 3rd party ought not to be penalized, due to the driver not having a proper and valid driving licence. In support of his contention he relies on the following judgments:
(i) Rukmini and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others 2
(ii) National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Swaran Singh and others 3
(iii). Pappu and others Vs Vinod Kumar Lamba and another 4
7. The submissions made by both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused including the records of the Tribunal. The question that arises for consideration is 'whether the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the insurer is just and proper?'
8. To the claim petition filed by the claimant, 3rd respondent - insurer has entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections, wherein it has stated that the liability of the insurer is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The insu
