Patna High Court
The New India Assurance Co. vs Saraswati Devi And Ors. on 9 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)BLJR2287, 2001 A I H C 340, 2000 BLJR 3 2287
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard Mr. D.C. Ghosh learned Counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 11.6.99 passed by Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal in M.V. Suit No. 105/96 whereby a sum of Rs. 3,33,000/- has been awarded to the respondents who are the widow, minor sons and daughters of the deceased.
3. Mr. Ghosh has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the person, who was driving the vehicle, was not holding a valid driving licence. In this connection, learned Counsel filed surveyor's report and also examined the Surveyor. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the surveyor's report cannot be relied upon without there being any evidence of independent witnesses particularly the witnesses from the Transport Department.
4. I have come across several cases where the Insurance Company takes a defence that it has no liability for the reason that the driver, who was driving, the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. Before appreciating the submission of the learned Counsel, it is necessary to state the circumstances under which the Insurance Companies would or would not be liable to pay compensation so awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
5. In the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokel Label Chandra Bhandani , the Supreme Court, considering a similar question, held that when the insured had handed over the vehicle to be driven by a licensed driver and even if the licensed driver on his own and because of his negligence had allowed the cleaner who was unlicensed to drive the vehicle, it could not be said that there was any breach committed by the insured so as to attract the exclusion clause in favour of the Insurance Company as contemplated under Section 92(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
6. In the case of Sohanlal Past v. P. Cess Reddy , the Supreme Court again clarified the law with regard to the extent of the defence taken by the Insurance Company with regard to driving licence. Their Lordships held that the insurer has to satisfy the Tribunal or the Court that violation or infringement of the policy condition by the insured was wilful. If the insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it has not been established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a. person not duly licensed, then the Insurance Company cannot rapudiate its statutory liability under Sub-section (1) of Section 96 of the Act.
7. Finally the apex Court in the case of United India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Gyanchand , after considering the above referred two earlier decisions, has held:
In order to resolve this controversy between the parties, it must be observed at the outset that the aforesaid decisions clearly indicate two distinct lines of cases. The first line of case consists of fact situations wherein the insured are alleged to have committed breach of the condition of insurance policy, which required them not to permit the vehicle to be driven by an unlicensed driver. Such a breach is held to be a valid defence for the Insurance Company to get exonerated from meeting the claims of third parties who suffer on account of vehicular accidents which may injure them personally or which may deprive them of their bread-winner on account of such accidents caused by the insured vehicle. The other line of cases deals with the insured owners of offending motor vehicles that cause such accidents wherein the insured owners of the vehicles do not themselves commit breach of any such condition and hand over the vehicles for driving to licensed drivers who on their own and without permission, express or implied, of the insured, hand over vehicles or act in such a way that the vehicles get available to unlicensed drivers for being driven by the latter and which get involved in vehicular accidents by driving of such unlicensed drivers. In such cases, the insurance company cannot get benefit of the exclusionary clause and will remain liable to meet the claims of third parties for accidental injuries, whether fatal or otherwise. The decisions of this Court in Skandia Insurance Co. and in Sohan Lal Passi represent this second line of cases while the decisions of this Court in New India Assurance Co. and in Kashiram Yadav represent the first line of cases.
8. The Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, has decided this issue by considering the entire evidence in detail and came to a finding that the Insurance Company failed to discharge its onus in proving that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. The Tribunal, also found that the owner of the vehicle categorically stated that the driver who was driving the vehicle, was a licensed driver. On the other hand, the Insurance Company, instead of brining on record the material evidences, has relied upon the surveyor's report. The Tribunal found that no material witnesses have been examined nor any material evidence was brought on record by the Insurance Company to substantiate that the driver who was driving the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. I do not find any reason to disturb the findings arrived at by the Claims Tribunal particularly when the proceeding before the Tribunal is a summary proceeding and the Insurance of the vehicle has not been denied by the appellant.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.