PUNAM DEVI AND ANR.versusDIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2004 INSC 103
- Decided
- 12 February 2004
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The insurer must prove that the driver lacked a valid licence; having failed to do so, the Tribunal’s award stands and the Letters Patent Bench erred in allowing the appeal.
Summary
In a motor accident, Sanjiv Kumar Jha died and his heirs obtained a compensation award of Rs. 3,91,500 from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhagalpur. The insurer, New India Assurance Co., appealed, first to a Single Judge of the Patna High Court, which dismissed the appeal as non‑maintainable, and then via a letters‑patent appeal, which was set aside and the matter remitted. The Supreme Court examined whether the insurer could rely on the alleged lack of a valid driving licence of the driver under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and who bears the burden of proof. Citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohagi and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, the Court held that the insurer must prove the driver did not possess a valid licence; mere absence or falsity of a licence is not a defence. Since the insurer offered no evidence, it failed to discharge this burden, and the Division Bench’s decision to allow the letters‑patent appeal was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Division Bench’s order and leaving the Tribunal’s award in force, with no order as to costs.
Issues considered
- The insurer's right to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
- Whether the insurer can rely on the alleged lack of a valid driving licence of the driver as a defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- The allocation of the burden of proof to establish that the driver did not possess a valid licence.
- The correctness of the Letters Patent Bench’s decision to set aside the Single Judge’s order and remit the matter.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 149(2)
Subjects
Judgment
A PUNAM DEVI AND ANR.
v.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND
ORS.
FEBRUARY 12, 2004
B
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
c S. I 49(2)-Motor Accident claim-Before Tribunal Insurance company
neither pleaded nor led any evidence that driver of vehicle did not have any
licence-Claimants/heirs of deceased awarded compensation-Insurance
Company's appeal dismissed by Single Judge of High Court-Letters Patent
Bench remitted the matter back upon framing issues for determination by
D Single Judge-Held, the only ground open to insurer is contained in Section
I 49(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act-The burden of proof that driver did not
have a licence was upon insurer which it failed to discharge-Division Bench
erred in allowing letters patent appeal-Appeal of claimants allowed
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohagi and Ors.,
E (2002) 7 SCC 456 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors.,
(2004) 1 SCALE 180, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7191 of
2002.
F From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.2001 of the Patna High Court
in L.P.A. No 1361 of 2000.
Ranjan Kumar Jha, Ejaz Maqbool and Braj K. Mishra for the Appellants.
J.R. Midha, Niraj Singh and Pranab Kumar Mullick for the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was 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-
H 354
355
-
PUNAM DEVI v. DIVNL. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Insurance Company neither pleaded nor led any evidence that the driver of A
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 B
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. Nico/letta Rohagi and C
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) I
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 D
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 ihe 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 E
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. F
We, therefore, set aside the order and judgment of the Division Bench.
The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.