Ram Chandra Singh vs Rajaram and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

14 August 2018

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 8145 of 2018

Result

Allowed

Bench

Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar

Citation

[2018] 9 S.C.R. 1083 : 2018 INSC 700

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

Fatal Accident – Claim for compensation – Tribunal awarded compensation, but absolving the insurer on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid licence – Liability to pay compensation amount was laid on the owner and the driver of the vehicle – Appeal by the vehicle owner – Dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: Insurer can be absolved only when the owner of the offending vehicle is aware of the fact that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle – Mere fact that the driving licence is fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer – Courts below made no attempt to analyse the pleadings and evidence to ascertain whether the owner was aware of the fake driving licence possessed by the driver – Therefore, matter remitted to High Court to reconsider the question whether liability was of the owner or the insurer to pay the compensation amount.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. It is well established that if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then the insurer would stand absolved. However, the mere fact that the driving licence is fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer. Indubitably, the High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the driving licence was found to be fake, but that concession by itself was not sufficient to absolve the insurer. [Para 11] [1088-E-F]

2. In the present case, the Tribunal made no attempt to analyse the pleadings and evidence on record to ascertain whether the appellant (owner) was aware of the fake driving licence possessed by the driver (respondent No.6). The Tribunal merely adverted to the investigation and verification report and found that the stated driving licence was invalid. The High Court also made no attempt to enquire into the relevant aspect, as has been consistently expounded by Supreme Court. It would be appropriate to relegate the parties before the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeal filed by the appellant (owner) only on the question of liability of the owner or of the insurer (respondent No.7) to pay the compensation amount. [Paras 9 and 13] [1087-B; 1089-A]

PEPSU Road Transport Corporation v. National

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The singular question involved in this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28th November, 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal From Order No.3290 of 2016, is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Firozabad, was right in holding that the insurer was not liable as the driver had a fake licence. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a motor accident claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Firozabad, bearing M.A.C.P. No.169 of 2012, consequent t

View Subscription Plans →