Judgment related to driving license and MV act part 4

 

JUDGMENT RELATED TO DRIVING LICENSE AND MV ACT PART 4

 

 Liability of insurer Breach of condition of insurance contract Absence, fake or invalid driving

licence of driver Disqualification of driver Case

Law analyzed Principles stated Held that

provisions of compulsory insurance against third

party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend

relief of compensation to victims of accidents Mere

absence, fake or invalid driving licence or

disqualification of the driver are not in themselves

the defences available to the insurer The insurer

has to prove negligence and breach of policy

conditions The burden of proof would be on the

insurer Even when the insurer proves such breach of policy conditions in above circumstances, insurer will have to prove that such breach was so

fundamental that it was responsible for cause of

accident, otherwise, insurer will be liable If the

driver has Learner's licence, insurer would be

liable.

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 u/s. 165, 149(2),

168, 174 The Tribunal in interpreting the policy

conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and concept of "fundamental breach" to allow the defences available to the insurer Further held that powers of Tribunal are not restricted to only decide claims between claimants and insured or insurer and/or driver, it has also powers to decide the disputes between insured and insurer and when such dispute is decided, it would be executable u/S. 174 as it applies to claimants No

separate proceedings are required Even when insurer is held not liable, it will satisfy the award in favour of claimants and can recover from the insured u/S. 174 of the Act.2004( 1) GLH 691(SC)N.

I.A. Com v/s Swaran Singh. followed

by SC in 2017 ACJ 1722 (SC) –

Kempaiah vs. S.S. Murthy

Contention that driver of offending vehicle was not

holding valid licence at the time of accident and

same was renewed after the date of accident whether IC is liable. Held ; yes

2011 ACJ 2468

2004 ACJ 1

and 2001 ACJ 843

(both SC) followed.

U/s 149(2) (a) (ii) and 149 (4)driving licence policy wilful breach burden of proof on whom Held on IC it is for the IC to prove that driver did not hold the DL to drive the class of vehicle or DL was fake and breach was conscious and willful on the part of insured to avoid its liability.

2012 ACJ 1268 (Del). Various SC decisions

referred to.

Driving licence DL expired before the date of

accident and renewed there after clause in police

provides that a person who holds or has held and not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence is entitled to drive vehicle whether

IC is liable in such case. Held ; yes

2012 ACJ 1566 (P & H)

DL driver was not holding valid DL at the time of

Accident owner not examined by IC Whether

IC can be held liable Held ; yes.

Swaran Singh followed.

2012 ACJ 1891, 2012 ACJ 1946

Nonpossession of valid licence by scooter rider,

cannot be held to have contributed to accident when IC has failed to examine the driver of offending vehicle.

2012 ACC 2635 (Del) and 2012 AAC 2895 (Mad) – SC judgments followed.

Production of fake licence by driver owner verified

it and found it genuine whether in such case, IC can avoid its liability. Held ; No.

2012 AAC 2636 (Del)

Liability of insurer Deceased died in mini auto

accident Driver of offending vehicle had licence to

drive light motor vehicle/LMV and not transport

vehicle Breach of condition of insurance apparent

on face of record Finding of fact arrived at that

vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods

vehicle is not correct as driving licence had been

granted for period of 20 years and not for period of 3 years Insurer therefore directed to deposit

compensation amount with liberty to recover same from owner and driver of vehicle.

2009 SC 2151Angad Kol

Whether the order of pay and recover can be passed by Tribunal, when there is dispute with respect to endorsement in the licence? Held Yes

2013 ACJ 487, at page No. 591 (para. 17).

Fake driving licence IC not liable to pay

compensation.

2013 ACJ 2129 (SC) – U.I.I.Com v/s Sujata

Arora.

But Hon'ble DB of Gujarat High Court in the

case of N I A Com. Ltd. V/s Nafis Ahmed Abdul

Razaq Ansari, reported in 2015 ACJ 1955 has held

that as per the ratio laid down in the case of

Swaran Singh, IC did not examine owner or driver

of the vehicle and adduced no evidence to prove

that owner had knowledge that driver is having a

fake licence or owner failed to take reasonable

care in employing a qualified and competent

driver having valid licence – Held IC failed to

discharge above referred burden and held

responsible to pay compensation.