Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. On this issue, ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon a case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savitri and Ors. decided on 21.09.2012 by this court in MAC.App. 1050/2012, wherein it is held as under: -

".................................................................................................. .................................................................................................... ..
The question of statutory liability to pay the compensation was discussed in detail by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, (1987) 2 SCC 654 where it was held that exclusion clause in the contract of Insurance must be read down being in conflict with the main statutory provision enacted for protection of victim of accidents. It was laid down that the victim would be entitled to recover the compensation from the insurer irrespective of the breach of the condition of policy. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Passi analyzed the corresponding provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and approved the decision in Skandia. In New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 342, the Supreme Court referred to the decision of the two Judge Bench in Skandia, the three Judge Bench decision in Sohan Lal Passi and held that the insurer who has been made liable to pay the compensation to third parties on account of issuance of certificate of insurance, shall be entitled to recover the same if there was any breach of the policy condition on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence. The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder:

15. On the other hand, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company submitted that if there is any breach of terms of policy, then the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, therefore, ld. Tribunal has rightly not fastened any liability on respondent no. 3.

16. Settled law is that where there is any breach of policy, the Insurance Company / insurer is entitled for complete exoneration. To strengthen her arguments, ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Ram Sagar and Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. decided by this Court on 07.07.2010 in MAC.App. 290/2009, wherein it is held as under:

"44. (ii) Even when there is a willful breach of the terms of the policy under Section 149 (2) (a) of the Act, the Insurance Company is under obligation to indemnify the liability towards the third parties and recover the same from the owner.
(iii) Once the Insured proves that the driver did not hold any driving licence to drive the Class of vehicle involved in the accident or that the driving licence was fake; requires the owner and driver to produce the driving licence and if they failed to produce the same, the onus of proving breach of policy would be deemed to be discharged. Onus would then shift on the owner to establish that he was not guilty of breach of the terms of policy. In the absence of any evidence being produced by the Insured, in such cases, it will be presumed that he was guilty of a willful breach. The Insured in such cases, would be entitled to recover the compensation paid to third party in discharge of its statutory liability.
(iv) Where policy is avoided on proof or facts which renders the Insurance policy void under Section 149 (2)
(b) of the Act, the Insurance Company would not be under obligation to pay even to third parties, as in such cases the contract of insurance is non est."

25. No doubt, the respondent no. 3 / insurance company successfully proved that there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy, mere breach of the conditions of the policy would not entitle the insurance company to avoid its liability against the ins8ured.