Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Tempo Vehicle driven in rash and negligent manner hit motorcycle of the victim – Victim died – Dependents sought compensation – The Tribunal awarded them compensation and found that the driver of the Tempo had a fake driving licence and opined that the petitioner-insurance company would not be liable to pay the compensation – Tribunal awarded liberty to the petitioner-insurance company to recover the same from owners of the Tempo – However, the High Court held that the petitioner-insurance company did not have the right to recover the compensation from the vehicle owners – Propriety: Held: The petitioner-insurance company did not raise the plea that the owner of the vehicle allowed the said driver to drive the vehicle knowing that his licence was fake – Its stand was that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the victim himself – Further, the insurance policy did not require the vehicle owner to undertake verification of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle by getting the same confirmed with the RTO – Therefore, the claim of the petitioner-insurance company that it has the right to recover the compensation from the owners of the vehicle, owing to a willful breach of the condition of the insurance policy, viz., to ensure that the vehicle was driven by a licenced driver, is without pleading and proof – Also, once a seemingly valid driving licence is produced by a person employed to drive a vehicle, unless such licence is demonstrably fake on the face of it, warranting any sensible employer to make inquiries as to its genuineness, or when the period of the licence has already expired, or there is some other reason to entertain a genuine doubt as to its validity, the burden is upon the insurance company to prove that there was a failure on the part of the vehicle owner in carrying out due diligence apropos such driving licence before employing that person to drive the vehicle – Presently, no evidence has been placed on record whereby an inference could be drawn that the deceased vehicle owner ought to have gotten driving licence of the said driver verified – Therefore, it was for the petitioner-insurance company to prove willful breach on the part of the said vehicle owner – As no such exercise was undertaken, the petitioner-insurance company would have no right to recover the compensation amount from the present owners of the vehicle. [Paras 14 and 15]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan and other (1987) 2 SCC 654 : [1987] 2 SCR 752; Sohan Lal Passi vs. P. Sesh Reddy and others (1996) 5 SCC 21 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 647; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297: [2004] 1 SCR 180; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lehru and others (2003) 3 SCC 338 : [2003] 2 SCR 495; Ram Chandra Singh vs. Rajaram and others (2018) 8 SCC 799 : [2018] 9 SCR 1083 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.