Judgment related to fake driving license and MV act

 

JUDGMENT RELATED TO FAKE DRIVING LICENSE AND MV ACT

 

 

The effect of fake license has to be considered in

the light of what has been stated by the Hon’ Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla V/s. Kamla and Ors., 2001 4 JT 235. Once the license is a fake one the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake license. It was observed in Kamla's case (supra) as follows:

"12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery

outfit stripped off merely on account of some

officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any Licensing Authority to "renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry". No Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the

assumption that it is genuine".

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 15, 149 liability

Of insurance company Tribunal opined that respondent insurance company was not liable to indemnify insured no valid and effective driving licence nor renewal of driving licence whether

to be considered as violation of terms of insurance policy held, it was found that driver of vehicle was not having valid licence on date of accident as licence was not renewed within thirty days of its expiry renewal after 30 days will have no retrospective effect there is a breach of condition of contract insurance company will have no liability in present case order of Tribunal as well as High Court upheld 2008(8) SCC 165 –Ram Babu Tiwari

When payment for renewal of licence is not the pre Condition and same was not paid, it cannot held that since payment is made after the the period of 30 days, licence issued there after can not came with retrospective effect.

2019 ACJ 65 (SC) OI Com. v/s. Mathu Ram

11(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 subsec. (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

12Motor 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

13Motor 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