Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The Tribunal has proceeded further on the assumption that the driver (R2) had no driving licence and then observed that this situation even will not absolve the insurer from their liability unless they further pleaded and proved that the insured had wilfully violated the condition by allowing a person who had no driving licence knowing that he had no driving licence. To reach the above conclusion the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court AIR 1987 SC 1184=I (1987) ACC 413 (SC), Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, and also of this Court 1991 (1)KLT 832, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jameek Beevi. The Tribunal has observed that this fact was neither pleaded nor proved by the Insurance Company. On the basis of the above reasoning the Tribunal concluded that the driver would be primarily liable and the owner (R1) would be vicariously liable and in the process the appellant-Insurance Company as the insurer would have to be held liable to indemnify the insured owner (R1).

8. In the process of reasoning the Tribunal passed the award dated February 29,1996 directing the appellant-Insurance Company to satisfy by answering issue No. 4 in the process.

9. As stated above, apart from the two decisions relied upon by the Tribunal, the learned Counsel took efforts to place before us the other decisions in the context, of the Apex Court , Kashimm Yadav v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. , New India Assurance Co. v.' Mandar Madhav Tambe and Ors., , Sohanlal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy; and JT 1997 (7) SC 735=11 (1997) ACC 437 (SC), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Gian Chand and Ors.