Insurance liability may not be negated by mere technicalities concerning the driver's license, unless it can be shown that there was actual negligence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI ON THE 28^th OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 2436 of 2015 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Versus KU. MAMTA MARKAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Gulab Chand Sohane - Advocate for the appellant.

None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served.

Shri Kapil Patwardhan - Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER The instant appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 , has been filed by the appellant/insurance company being aggrieved with the award dated 28.08.2015 passed in M.C.C. No.38/2015 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.39,844/- along with interest has been awarded in favour of respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 is the driver of offending Vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-

20-MU-4262 which was registered in the name of respondent No.3. 2. The concise account of the case are that on 07.11.2013, when the claimant/respondent No.1 was going to drop his brother to school on foot, on the way, she was dashed by respondent No.2 driving the offending vehicle in negligent manner which resulted into serious Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA injuries to the claimant; she suffered jaw injuries, head injuries and four broken teeth. The incident was reported to police and criminal case got registered. The claimant (respondent No.1 herein) had filed a claim case seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/-. The respondent No.2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The appellant and respondent No.3 have filed their written statement and contested the matter. After examining the material produced before the learned Tribunal, impugned award has been passed granting compensation to the tune of Rs.39,844/-

to the claimant/respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contends that on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid license to drive the class of vehicle i.e. motorcycle with gears and this willful default on the part of insured should have been considered as breach of policy but the learned Tribunal erred in giving finding to that effect. He further submits that the insurance company has produced sufficient evidence in support of their plea which have wrongly been discarded by the learned Tribunal. Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal fixing the liability to pay the compensation upon respondent No.3.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant submitting that the learned Tribunal has not committed any mistake while passing the impugned award and fixing the liability upon the appellant/insurance Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA company. He also contends that record shows that at the time of the accident, respondent No.2 was holding a valid license issued by the competent authority, however, at any eventuality, mere absence of valid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, is not in itself a defence available to the insurer against either the insured or the 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 conditions of policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. In support of his contentions, he places reliance upon the order passed by this High Court in the case of Sanjay & Another Vs. Akhilesh & Another reported in

2007 ACJ 771 and prays for dismissal of appeal.

5. Heard the rival contentions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

6. Upon hearing the submissions made by appellant's counsel, the instant appeal has been filed solely on the ground of breach of policy by respon