An insurer is not liable to indemnify claims due to a fundamental breach of policy conditions, notably allowing a minor to drive a vehicle.

ORDER

The insurance company has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 19.09.2006 in M.V.C No. 42/2005 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 76,000/- to the claimant/respondent No. 1 on account of road accident. The appellant/insurance company was directed to indemnify the claimant being insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. The concise account of the case are that on 07.10.2004, the claimant/respondent No.1 met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 while driving motor cycle bearing registration number M.P.-51-B-7262 which resulted into serious injuries to the claimant on his right leg and hand. The claimant suffered with the fractured on the tibia fibula bone of his right leg. He remained hospitalized for the period from 07.10.2004 to 15.10.2004 at Medial College, Jabalpur.

3. The claimant filed a claim petition wherein the respondent No. 2 and 3 remained ex-parte. The insurance company contested the case on the ground that on the date of accident the driver of offending vehicle being minor did not have valid driving license to drive the vehicle and thus, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. After going through the evidence, the learned Tribunal discarded the plea raised by appellant/insurance company holding them liable to pay the compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company argued that the respondent No. 2 and 3 both are brothers. The respondent No. 2 was the driver of offending vehicle which was registered in the name of respondent No. 3. The insurance company does not deny the fact of vehicle being insured but the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the vehicle was plying in violation of condition of insurance policy as the driver of vehicle did not have valid driving license on the date of accident. The respondent No. 3/owner of offending cannot escape from his liability to pay the compensation merely on saying that he did not give consent to drive the vehicle to his brother. With the aforesaid, he prays to allow the appeal and appellant/insurance company may be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation.

5. Heard.

6. On perusal of record, it is clearly established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 while driving the offending vehicle registered in the name of respondent No.3. It is also undisputed that respondent No. 2 was a minor and had no driving licence. Under Section 3 read with Section 4 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, no person below the prescribed age can drive a motor vehicle, and the owner of such vehicle is under a statutory duty to ensure that the vehicle is not driven by a person who does not hold a valid licence.

7. The contention of the owner that the vehicle was driven by his minor brother without his consent or knowledge cannot be accepted as the owner of a vehicle must take adequate care to ensure that only a duly licensed and competent person drives the vehicle.

8. It is often said that responsibility is the silent shadow that follows every act of freedom. In the case of the young, whose impulses race faster than their understanding, that shadow must be guided by the hands of their elders. Thus, upon the elder rests the solemn duty to restrain the minor from venturing into paths not yet meant for their age particularly, the act of driving a vehicle, which demands both maturity and lawful permission. The elder must serve as both guardian and guide, ensuring that the thrill of youth does not overrun the boundaries of safety and law. The minor’s safety, and the safety of others, depends upon the vigilance of the elder who understands that care is the truest expression of responsibility.

9. In the present case, both the owner and the driver are real brother . It is inconceivab