2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 2149
SANJAY KUMAR, J
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Devi and others – Respondent
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 19992 OF 2023
Advocates:
For the Appellant: Not mentioned
For the Respondents: Not mentioned
The insurer must demonstrate a wilful breach by the insured to evade liability, especially concerning the driver's licensing.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 149(1) and 149(2)(a)(ii) - Insurance liability - Right of recovery denied to the insurer for lack of evidence proving breach of policy conditions - Insured did not conduct adequate verification of the driver’s license to constitute a breach. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
(B) Claim for compensation - Insurer's liability extends unless there is a demonstrable breach by the insured - Mere possession of a fake license by the driver does not absolve insurer without proof of negligence by the insured. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the reversal of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award which had granted compensation to the claimants while denying liability of the insurer based on the driver’s fake license.
Findings of Court:
The insurer failed to demonstrate a breach of terms sufficient to deny indemnification for the insured's claims.
Issues: The primary issue revolves around whether the existence of a fake driver's license affects the insurer's liability given that adequate precautions were undertaken by the insured.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that the insurer must prove wilful breach on the insured's part to deny liability and cannot recline on consequences of the driver’s negligence without proof.
Result: The special leave petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurance liability and terms related to the driver. (Para 4) |
| 2. discussion on the requirements for verification of driving licenses. (Para 6) |
| 3. court's ratification of established legal principles around breach. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
SANJAY KUMAR, J 1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks to assail the order dated 11.05.2023 of the Delhi High Court in MAC. APP. No. 914 of 2019. Thereby, the High Court reversed the Award dated 06.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in MAC Petition No. 4415 of 2016, to the extent it granted the right of recovery to the petitioner-insurance company. Aggrieved by the denial of such right of recovery, the petitioner-insurance company is before this Court.
Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2023.10.30 13:23:06 IST Reason:
Signature Not Verified 2. Facts, to the extent germane, may be noted: One Dharambir suffered fatal injuries on 09.05.2010, when the Tempo vehicle bearing Registration No. HR69D-0246, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit his motorcycle. His dependents, viz., his parents, widow and children, approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi, under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1988’), seeking compensation. Ujay Pal, the driver of the Tempo vehicle; Netra Pal Singh, the owner of the vehicle, who died during the pendency of the case and was represented by his legal representatives, viz., his mother, widow and minor son; and the petitioner-insurance company were arrayed as the respondents in their claim petition. By Award dated 06.07.2018, the Tribunal held in their favour and awarded them a sum of 13,70,000/- as compensation with interest. However, the Tribunal ₹ found that the driver of the Tempo had a fake driving licence and opined that the petitioner-insurance company would not be liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the petitioner-insurance company to deposit the awarded amount with liberty to recover the same from the present owners of the Tempo. Aggrieved by this finding, the owners of the vehicle filed an appeal in MAC. APP. No. 914 of 2019 before the Delhi High Court, resulting in the impugned order dated 11.05.2023. 3. The record reflects that Ujay Pal, the driver of the vehicle, had produced a driving licence issued at Mathura at the time of his employment and it was only after the accident that it came to light that the said licence was not a genuine one. The widow of Netra Pal Singh, the deceased vehicle owner, stated before the Tribunal that her husband had told her he had taken a driving skill test after seeing the driving licence produced by Ujay Pal, before employing him as a driver. However, the Record Clerk from the ARTO, Mathura, testified that, as per their record, the licence produced by Ujay Pal was fake as that licence number related to some other person. In view of this evidence, the Tribunal held that the petitioner-insurance company would not be liable, owing to a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the vehicle owner, and granted the right of recovery to the petitioner-insurance company. However, in appeal, the High Court opined that the petitioner-insurance company had neither pleaded nor proved that the deceased vehicle owner did not take adequate steps to verify the genuineness of the driving licence and in the absence of such a plea on its part, the Tribunal could not have concluded that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
The High Court, therefore, held that the petitioner-insurance company did not have the right to recover the compensation from the vehicle owners.
4. It would be apposite at this stage to note the statutory milieu pertinent to this case. Section 149 of the Act of 1988, to the extent relevant, reads as under: -
‘149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
