JUDGMENT RELATED TO DRIVING LICENSE AND MV ACT PART 7

 

JUDGMENT RELATED TO DRIVING LICENSE AND MV ACT PART 7

(A)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S.149(1) motor

accident claim liability of insurer third party

risk Tribunal held that accident was due to rash

and negligent driving of the scooter by driver and

granted Rs. 3,01,500 as compensation with interest at 9% per annum in favour of the claimants and against the second respondent owner of the scooter and appellant insurance company whether insurance company could be held liable to pay the amount of compensation for the default of the scooterist who was not holding licence for driving two wheeler scooter but had driving licence of different class of vehicle in terms of S. 10 of the Act held, where the insurers relying upon the provisions of violation of law by the assured, take an exception to pay the assured or a third party, they must prove a wilful violation of the law by the assured provisions of sub sec. (4) and (5) of S. 149 of the Act may be considered as to the liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree at the first instance liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of a third party is also statutory.

(B)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 10(2) motor accident claim liability of insurer appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooterist who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of S. 10(2) of the Act

2008(12) SCC 385 – Zahirunisha

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 149 Constitution of

India Art. 136 extent of liability of insurer motor

vehicle accident caused by driver possessing fake license at relevant time Tribunal rejecting the insurer's liability validity driver, brother of owner of said vehicle held, holding of fake license not by itself absolves insurer of its liability but insurer has to prove that owner of vehicle was aware of fact that license was fake and still permitted driver to drive on facts, insurer liability to pay compensation contradicted thus, balance amount of claimant and amount already paid by insurer to claimants to be recovered from owner and driver of vehicle

2008 (3) SCC 193Prem Kumari v/s Prahlad Dev

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S.149(2)(a)(ii) motor

accident liability of insurer in claim petition,

Tribunal held that Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation licence of driver was not issued by a competent authority contention of insurer that by employing a driver with invalid driving licence owner insured has breached the condition of S. 149(2)(a)

(ii) held, owner had satisfied himself that the

driver had a licence and was driving completely there was no breach of S. 149(2)(a)(ii) if the driver produces a driving licence, which on the fact of it looks genuine, owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not therefore, insurance

company would not be absolved of its liability in

order to avoid its liability, insurer has to prove

that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable case 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

Lal Chand v/s O.I.Com 2006(7) SCC 318

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 u/s. 2(10) 39,10,

1416,1921,23, 27, 147, 149, 163A, 165, 166 and

168 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