LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus VIDHYADHAR MAHARIWALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 604 A NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. \I. VIDHYADHAR MAHARIWALA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5721 of 2008) B SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - & 173: c Motor vehicle accident - Claim -Award - Liability of insurer when driver not holding valid licence - Held: Insurer not liable. The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to whether the Insurer is liable to pay the D amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to claimant in a motor vehicle accident when the driver of '( . the vehicle was not holding a valid licence while driving the vehicle which met with an accident. E Appellant-insurer contended that in view of the judg- ment of this Court in lshwar Chandra and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., insurer is not liable to pay com- pensation to the claimant when the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence on the day of F the accident. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: In /shwar Chandra's case, it was held by this G Court that the insurance company would have no liabil- ity in the case of this nature. This Court is in agreement with the view. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. It is open to the claimant to recover the amount from re- H 604 r NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. VIDHYADHAR 605 MAHARIWALA & ORS. spondent No.2. (Para - 11) [609 H 610 A BJ lshwar Chandra and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 650; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297; National Insurance A Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 250 and Orlen- B ta( Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanjappan & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 224 - relied on. Case Law Reference (2001) 1 o sec 650 (2004) 3 sec 297 (2006) 4 sec 250 (2004) 13 sec 224 Relied on Relied on Relied on Relied on Para -6 Para~ 5 Para· 5 Para - 5 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5721 of 2008 c D From the Final Judgment and Order dated 13.2.2007 of E the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.S. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 948/2007 Dr. Meera Agarwal for the Appi:llant. Devashish Bharuka, Alok Sangwan, Jaya Bharuka and F Hansa Bharuka for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jabalpur dismiss- ing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). Challenge in the G H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A appeal was to the award made by the Motor Claims Appellate Tribunal, Ratangarh (Churu) (in short 'MACT) in Claim Case No.89 of 2004. By the said award, a sum of Rs.4,03,650/- was awarded to the claimant-respondent No.1 in the appeal. The 8 dispute related to the rejection of appellant's claim for exonera- tion on the ground of violation of policy condition. It was pointed out that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not in force on the date of accident. C 3. Factual position in detail need not be indicated because the issue relates to the liability of the insurance company as the driving license was not valid on the date of the accident. 4. In the instant case the date of accident was 11.6.2004. The driver's license was initially valid for the period from D 15.12.1997 to 14.12.2000 and thereafter from 29.12.2000 to 14.12.2003. Thereafter, it was again renewed from 16.5.2005 to 15.5.2008. The appellant filed its objections before MACT taking the stand that since the driving license was not valid on E the date of accident it had no liability. The MACT turned down the plea. According to it though on the date of accident the driv- ing license was not valid, since the driver's license was renewed on 16.5.2005 for a further period of three years it cannot be said that during the intervening period the driver was incompe- F G tent or disqualified to driver the truck. With reference to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act') it was held that at the time of accident driver was compe- tent to drive the vehicle. 5. In appeal by the impugned judgment the High Court re- ferred to three judgments of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (2004 (3) SCC 297), Na- tional Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.