JUDGMENT
RELATED TO DRIVING LICENSE AND MV ACT PART 1
1Whether the
verification report of driving licence
issued by District
Transport Officer is a public
document and can be
relied upon? Held; no. Unapproved verification report obtained by a private person
cannot be treated as public document
2011 ACJ 2138 (DEL)
2IC took defense
that driver was not holding the valid licence to drive IC did not examine any
witness in this regard mere reliance on the exhibited driving licence marking of
exhibit does not dispense with the proof of document IC held liable
AIR 1971 SC 1865,
2011 ACJ 1606 ((P&H)
3Whether IC is
liable even if the driver had forged
driving licence? Held
; yes. Mere fact of licence
being forged is not
enough to absolve the IC from
liability
2004 ACJ 1 (SC),
2011 ACJ 1611 (HP)
4Driving licence Tribunal
exonerated IC, relying upon the photo copy of the it none of the parties have proved
the contents of photocopy of the licence whether Tribunal erred in exonerating
IC? Held ; yes as photocopy of licence was not duly proved
2011 ACJ 1461 (MP),
2011 ACJ 1606 (P&H ) – 1971
SC 1865 relied upon
5 Whether IC is
liable even if the driver had forged
driving licence? Held
; yes mere fact of licence
being forged is not
enough to absolve the IC from
liability
2004 ACJ 1 (SC),
2011 ACJ 1611 (HP)
6Driving licence DL issued
on 7.8.79renewed
for the period
between 18.11.89 to 17.11.92again
renewed
for the period between 27.7.95 to 17.11.98accident occurred on 30.9.94whether
IC can avoid its liability
on the ground that driver was not having valid and effective DL on the date of
accident? Held; no word ‘effective licence’ used u/s 3 of Act, can’t be
imported to section 149(2)breaks in validity or tenure of DL does not attract
provisions for disqualification of the driver to get DLIC held liable
2011 ACJ 2337 (ALL)
7DLIC seeks to avoid
its liability on the ground
that DL was renewed
by RTO clerk and not by
authorized officer
of RTOIC failed to examined the
responsible officer
of RTO to prove its case whether IC is liable. Held ; yes
2011 ACJ 2385
(J&K)
8Following principles/guideline
laid down by Full
Bench of SC in Para
no. 108 in the case of N.I. Com.
v/s Swaran Singh,
reported in 2004 (1) JT 109 = 2004
(1) GLH 691 (SC)(
also see Point
No103)
(i) Chapter XI of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
providing compulsory
insurance of vehicles
against third party risks
is a social welfare
legislation to
extend relief by compensation to
victims of accidents
caused by use of motor
vehicles. The
provisions of compulsory insurance
coverage of all
vehicles are with this paramount
object and the
provisions of the Act have to be
so interpreted as to
effectuate the said object.
(ii) An insurer is
entitled to raise a defence in a
claim petition filed
u/s. 163A or Sec. 166 of
the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, inter alia, in
terms of Sec.
149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of
policy condition e.g.
disqualification of
the driver or invalid
driving licence of
the driver, as contained in
subsec.(2)(a)(ii) of
Sec. 149, has to be
proved to have been
committed by the insured for
avoiding liability
by the insurer. 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 the insured, the
insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of
negligence and
failed to exercise reasonable
care in the matter
of fulfilling the condition
of the policy
regarding use of vehicles by a
duly licensed driver
or one who was not
disqualified to
drive at the relevant time.
(iv) Insurance
companies, however, with a view to
avoid their
liability must not only establish
the available
defence(s) raised in the said
proceedings but must
also establish "breach" on
the part of the
owner of the vehicle; the burden
of proof wherefore
would be on them.
(v) The court cannot
lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch
as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(vi) Even where the
insurer is able to prove breach
on the part of the
insured concerning the policy
condition regarding
holding of a valid licence
by the driver or his
qualification to drive
during the relevant
period, the insurer would
not be allowed to
avoid its liability towards
the insured unless
the said breach or breaches
on the condition of
driving licence is/are so
fundamental as are
found to have contributed to
the cause of the
accident. The Tribunals in
interpreting the
policy conditions would apply
"the rule of
main purpose" and the concept of
"fundamental
breach" to allow defences available
to the insurer u/s.
149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question,
as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the
driving licence produced by the driver (a fake
one or otherwise),
does not fulfill the
requirements of law
or not will have to be
determined in each
case.
(viii) If a vehicle
at the time of accident was
driven by a person
having a learner's licence,
the insurance
companies would be liable to
satisfy the decree.
(ix) The Claims
Tribunal constituted u/s. 165 read
with Sec. 168 is
empowered to adjudicate all
claims in respect of
the accidents involving
death or of bodily
injury or damage to property
of third party
arising in use of motor vehicle.
The said power of
the Tribunal is not restricted
to decide the claims
inter se between claimant
or claimants on one
side and insured, insurer
and driver on the
other (this view is followed
in the case of
KUSUMsee
point no101).
In the course of
adjudicating the claim for
compensation and to
decide the availability of
defence or defences
to the insurer, the Tribunal
has necessarily the
power and jurisdiction to
decide disputes
inter se between the insurer and
the insured. The
decision rendered on the claims
and disputes inter
se between the insurer and
insured in the course
of adjudication of claim
for compensation by
the claimants and the award
made thereon is
enforceable and executable in
the same manner as
provided in Sec. 174 of the
Act for enforcement
and execution of the award
in favour of the
claimants.
(x) Where on
adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion
that the
insurer has
satisfactorily proved its defence in
accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 149(2)
read with subsec.
Posts
0 Comments