Punam Devi And Anr. vs Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors.
- SCC(2004) 3 SCC 386
- Neutral2004 INSC 103
- AIRAIR 2004 SC 1742
- SCR[2004] 2 SCR 354
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An insurer seeking to avoid liability under a motor vehicle insurance policy on the ground that the driver lacked a valid or subsisting driving licence must affirmatively prove that fact; the mere absence of evidence that the driver possessed a licence does not discharge the insurer's burden, and where the insurer neither pleads nor leads evidence of the driver's lack of licence before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, it cannot subsequently raise this defence in appeal. An insurer cannot challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal except on the grounds specified in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore lacks standing to appeal on the basis that the award amount is excessive.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In a motor vehicle accident, one Sanjiv Kumar Jha died at the spot. Consequently, the appellants filed their claims petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhagalpur. Before the Tribunal, the respondent- Insurance Company neither pleaded nor led any evidence that the driver of the truck did not have any licence. The Tribunal by an order dated 12.2.1999 gave an award for a sum of Rs. 3,91,500 - Aggrieved, the respondent-Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Aggrieved, the respondent-Insurance Company further filed a letters patent appeal before the High Court. The Letters Patent Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter back upon framing issues for determination by the Single Judge. It is against the said judgment, the appellants are in appeal before us.
In National Insurance Co. Ltd Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohagi and Ors., [2002] 7 SCC 456, it was held that the insurance company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only ground open to insurer is contained in Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors, (2004) 1 Scale 180, this Court has held that "mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence or failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time." In the present case, the insurer has not led any evidence that the driver of the vehicle had no licence. The burden of proof that the driver had no licence was open to the insurer which it failed to discharge.
In that view of the matter, the Division Bench erred in allowing the letters patent appeal.
We, therefore, set aside the order and judgment of the Division Bench. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free