Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12557
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. – Appellant
Versus
AMBIKA VENUGOPAL AND OTHERS – Respondent
MACA 2190 2007
ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM
The court reaffirmed that insurers hold the burden of proof regarding violations of policy conditions, such as the absence of a valid driver’s license, to establish non-liability.
Headnote:
Liability - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 3; 147 - The court emphasized the burden of proof is on the insurer to demonstrate the driver's lack of a valid license, influencing the decision to uphold the award of compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals involve a motor vehicle accident where a minor was injured, and her father died due to negligence of the driver of a lorry. The claimants sought compensation, which was initially awarded. The insurer contested liability based on the driver's alleged lack of a valid license.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the tribunal's earlier findings, ruling that the insurer failed to prove the driver's lack of a license, noting the burden of proof lies with the insurer. Further evidence was permitted for both claimants and the insurer regarding compensation.
Issues: Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation due to the driver's lack of a valid driving license and whether the claimants should be granted additional compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling underlined that the burden is on the insurer to affirmatively demonstrate policy violations, including a lack of driving license, and established that a mere allegation does not release an insurer from liability without sufficient proof.
Final Decision: The appeals are allowed, and the matter is remanded to the tribunal for further evidence.
JUDGMENT
These four appeals are connected and therefore, I am disposing these four appeals by a common judgment. MACA Nos. 2104/2007 and MACA No. 57/2008 are filed challenging the same award in O.P.(M.V.) No.118/2002. Similarly, MACA No.2190/2007 and MACA No.483/2008 are filed challenging the same award in O.P.(M.V.) No. 119/2002. The appellant in MACA No.2104/2007 is the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company and the appellant in MACA No.57/2008 is the claimant in the above O.P.(M.V.). The appellant in MACA No.2190/2007 is the Insurance Company/3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.119/2002 and the appellant in MACA No.483/2008 is the claimant in the claim petition.
2. The short facts are like this :
On 19.11.2001 at 8.15 am, the minor petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.118/2002 and her father, Venugopal were riding a motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-8 G 6009. The minor was the pillion rider. At the place of accident, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-20/3012 driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition hit on the motor cycle resulting in a major accident, in which the minor petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.118/2002 sustained serious injuries and her father Venugopal died due to the head injury sustained in the accident. O.P.(M.V.) No. 119/2002 is the application for compensation filed by the legal heirs of deceased Venugopal including the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 118/2002. The 4th petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 119/2002 is the aged mother of Venugopal and petitioners 1 to 3 are the wife and children. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, who is the driver of the offending heavy vehicle lorry bearing registration No.KA-20/3012.
3. O.P.(M.V.) Nos.118/2002 and 119/2002 were tried together. To substantiate the case, claimants produced Exts.A1 to A34. One witness was examined on the side of the claimants as PW1. After going through the evidence and documents, the Tribunal allowed the petitions. The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 118/2002 is allowed to realise a compensation of Rs.76,300/- from the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. As far as O.P.(M.V.) No. 119/2002 was concerned, the claim was allowed and the claimants are allowed to realise a compensation of Rs.3,29,500/- from the respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) Nos. 118/2002 and 119/2002 filed MACA Nos.57/2008 and 483/2008. The 3rd respondent- Insurance Company filed MACA Nos. 2104/2007 and 2190/2007 mainly contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having licence and badge. It was a heavy vehicle. Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance with their rank before the Tribunal.
4. The counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Insurance Company may be exonerated from paying the compensation for the simple reason that the 2nd respondent, who is the driver of the heavy vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20/3012 was not having a licence or badge. In such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation because of the violation of the policy conditions. The counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, it was specifically contended that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and authorisation to drive transport vehicle on public road. According to the counsel, the appellant company had filed I.A.No.2217/2005 seeking for a direction to produce driving licence and authorisation to drive transport vehicle on public road. The Tribunal already allowed that application directing the parties concerned to produce necessary documents before the Tribunal. Service of notice in the said petition was effected by the paper publication. The counsel submitted that the driver did not produce any documents befo
