Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The appellant - insurance company (original respondent no.2) has resisted the Claim petitions with contention that the owner of Jeep has committed breach of policy condition and thereby the insurance company not liable to pay the compensation. It is 424.05FA+.odt contended that the driver of Jeep was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the Jeep in question. By entrusting the vehicle to a person having no valid and effective licence to drive the insured vehicle, the respondent no.1 i.e. the owner has committed breach of policy condition.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant -

insurance company (respondent No.2) assailed 424.05FA+.odt the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal with contention that in view of fundamental breach of policy condition committed on the part of insured - respondent no.1, the Tribunal should not have passed the order of pay and recover. It is submitted that it has duly proved that the vehicle in question insured was registered for private use. The owner-insured has not obtained any permit to use the same for carriage of passengers. At the relevant time of accident, the claimants and others were travelling in said Jeep as fair paying passengers. The Jeep was hired by them. They have agreed to pay hire charges @ 3.50 per kilo meter to the owner of the Jeep. In that view, the appellant - insurance has duly proved its case that owner-insured has committed breach of policy condition and use the vehicle for carriage of passenger for hire and reward. It is contended that respondent no.1 - owner of 424.05FA+.odt the vehicle did not step into witness box. No circumstances brought on record to justify the order to pay and recover.

Except the investigator no one examined from the appellant - insurance company to establish that there was fundamental breach of policy condition on the part of owner-

insured. Although the plea was raised that the driver of Jeep was not holding the valid and effective licence and the vehicle was used for hire and reward, the Officers from the insurance company failed to step into witness box in support of its plea/defence.

424.05FA+.odt "10. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submitted that the owner has committed breach of policy which disentitles him for to be indemnified. As per Section 147 M.V. Act, the policy shall cover the passengers in the vehicles. According to Section 149 of the M.V. Act, it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy the judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. As per sub-sec (2) of Sec. 149 M.V. Act, the insurance company can defend the action on the ground that there has been a breach of specified condition of the policy, namely, the condition excluding the use of the vehicle for hire or reward when it is not covered by the permit to ply for hire or reward, or it is driven by person without licence. Relying upon this, the learned counsel submitted that the vehicle in accident was not insured as a vehicle with permit to ply for hire or reward and therefore, it be not held liable. Reference can be made to sub-section (4) of Sec. 149.