Supreme Court of India
Punam Devi And Anr vs Divisional Manager, New India ... on 12 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1742, 2004 (3) SCC 386, 2004 AIR SCW 1308, 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 1437, (2005) 185 ELT 227, 2004 (2) SCALE 693, 2004 SCC(CRI) 813, (2005) 128 ECR 234, (2004) 2 CTC 79 (SC), (2004) 2 JCR 95 (SC), 2004 (2) SLT 317, 2004 (3) SRJ 325, (2004) 3 JT 332 (SC), 2004 (3) JT 332, 2004 (1) BLJR 787, (2004) 16 INDLD 22, (2004) 2 ALL WC 1518, (2004) 4 MAD LW 304, (2004) 2 TAC 313, (2004) 2 RECCIVR 236, (2004) 2 SCALE 693, (2004) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 584, (2004) 2 PUN LR 295, (2004) 1 ACC 720, (2004) 2 ACJ 785, (2004) 4 CAL HN 9, (2004) 3 CIVLJ 9, (2004) 120 COMCAS 131, (2004) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 258, (2004) 2 SUPREME 205, (2004) 27 OCR 802, (2004) SC CR R 818, (2004) 1 ANDHWR 799, (2004) 4 BOM CR 48
Bench: S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7191 of 2002 PETITIONER: PUNAM DEVI AND ANR. RESPONDENT: DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/02/2004 BENCH: V.N. KHARE CJ & S.B. SINHA & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 2004(2) SCR 354 The following Order of the Court was delivered :
In a motor vehicle accident, one Sanjiv Kumar Jha died at the spot. Consequently, the appellants filed their claims petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhagalpur. Before the Tribunal, the respondent- Insurance Company neither pleaded nor led any evidence that the driver of the truck did not have any licence. The Tribunal by an order dated 12.2.1999 gave an award for a sum of Rs. 3,91,500 - Aggrieved, the respondent-Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Aggrieved, the respondent-Insurance Company further filed a letters patent appeal before the High Court. The Letters Patent Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter back upon framing issues for determination by the Single Judge. It is against the said judgment, the appellants are in appeal before us.
In National Insurance Co. Ltd Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohagi and Ors., [2002] 7 SCC 456, it was held that the insurance company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only ground open to insurer is contained in Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors, (2004) 1 Scale 180, this Court has held that "mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence or failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time." In the present case, the insurer has not led any evidence that the driver of the vehicle had no licence. The burden of proof that the driver had no licence was open to the insurer which it failed to discharge.
In that view of the matter, the Division Bench erred in allowing the letters patent appeal.
We, therefore, set aside the order and judgment of the Division Bench. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.