Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. Learned counsel for the appellants has also raised the issue regarding the breach of policy conditions even if this Court holds that the owner had committed breach of policy conditions. It will have to viewed and appreciated whether the alleged breach was a fundamental breach permitting Insurance Company to avoid liability.

The principles for deciding whether it was a fundamental breach of policy or not, provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as follows : -

" 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. --
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons."

25. While going through the record the contention that the vehicle did not have permit to ply on the road it was being played and was being plied in breach of policy condition and that the driver was not having proper driving licence, cannot be sustained. The reason being the permit was also produced and even if it is held that there was no permit of tractor trolley  it is held by the Apex Court in  several decisions that not having a permit is not fundamental  breach of policy.

26. The decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chinnamma and others, 2004(3) T.A.C. 577 can not come to the aid of Insurance Company In the facts of this case, it was not proved that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes the said judgment will not apply rather it is proved that the vehicle was used for carrying agricultural goods when it met with accident. Even in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan and others ( supra) the facts of that case cannot be applied as the liability has been fixed after holding that there was no breach of policy conditions. The driving licence question has also been answered by the Apex Court recently and, therefore, just because there was no endorsement it cannot be said that there was breach of policy conditions. The three questions on which the Insurance Company wants to avoid their liability is one that the vehicle did not have permit. Second the driver had the licence to drive only LMV vehicle but did not have the endorsement and thirdly that the tractor was used for non agricultural purposes. All these three issues are answered against the Insurance Company as herein below.

27. The issue of the tractor trolley begin used in breach of policy conditions is answered by the Tribunal and I find support from the recent judgment of Apex Court reported in 2017(8) SCC 590 gives the answer. The Apex Court in Santlal Vs. Rajesh and others, (2017) 8 SCC 590 relying on the decision of Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 2017 (SC) 3668 relying on has answered the questions raised herein by the counsel for appellant and, therefore, all the three grounds are rejected. The vehicle in this case was not carrying any goods or passenger for hire or reward. It was not proved by the Insurance Company whether it was for any other purposes in absence of any evidence, it would be presumed that there was no breach of conditions of policy. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of Apex Court in Fahim Ahmad Vs. United India Asurance Company Ltd., 2014 SC 2187 and the recent judgment of this High Court in First Appeal From Order No. 501 of 2017 ( Veer Krishna Singh and another Vs. Sandeep Singh and another ) decided on 28.2.2017 and First Appeal From Order No. 1532 of 2012 ( The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rama Beti and others) decided on 22.2.2017 relying on the Apex Court decision that permit is not sine qua non and even if it is not there, it does not amount to fundamental breach of policy.