LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. versus KANTI DEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. v. KANTI DEVI AND ORS. . MAY 9, 2005 B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 149(2)(a)(ii)-Motor accident- Death-Claim for compensation-Plea of insurer that driver of the alleged c vehicle did not hold requisite driving licence to drive that type of vehicle- Award of claim-Liability put on insurer with right to recover it from insured- Appeal of insurer dismissed by High Court relying on a decision of Supreme Court-In appeal, held: Jn view of a subsequent judgment of Supreme Court insurer can take the defence that the driver did not have the requisite driving licence to drive a particular type of vehicle-Onus is on the insurer to prove ,,D that insured did not take adequate care to verifY genuineness of the licence held by the driver-Matter remitted to Tribunal as the subsequent decision was not before the Tribunal or High Court. Respondent-claimant filed claim petition be~ore Motor Accident E Claim Tribunal seeking compensation for death of her son who died on account of vehicular accident. Appellant insurer took the plea that respondent driver of the vehicle did .not have requisite driving licence to drive the type of vehicle alleged. Tribunal awarded claim in favour of respondent-claimant, directing the insurer to satisfy the award, with right to recover it from the insured. High Court dismissed the appeal of the F insurer in view of decision of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors., [2003] 3 SCC 338. In appeal to this Court appellant-insurer contended that reliance on Lehru 's case by High Court was untenable in view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. [2004] 3 SCC 297. G Disposing of the appeal and remitting the case to the Tribunal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The insurer can take a defence that the driver did not have the requisite driving licence to drive a particular type of vehicle. Such H 186 ,,, r " ( NA TJONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. v. KANT! DEVI 187 defence can be raised and it will be for the insurer to prove that the insured A ~ did not take adequate care and caution to verify genuineness or otherwise of the licence held by the driver. The effect of the evidence in this regard has to be considered by the concerned Tribunal. [189-H; 190-A] 1.2. The decision in Swaran Singh 's case was not before either the MACT or the High Court when the respective orders were passed. B Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The matter shall be decided keeping in view the principle enunciated by this Court in Swaran Singh's case. [191-B) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh and Ors., [2004) 3 SCC C 297, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3197 of2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .9 .2003 of the Delhi High Court in F.A.O.No. 551 of 2003. Pijush Sharma and Pramod Dayal for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal filed by it. D E Questioning the award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (in short 'MACT'), the appeal was filed before F the High Court. By the aforesaid award the MACT had held that the respondent no. I Mrs. Kanti Devi (hereinafter referred to as the- 'claimant') was entitled to compensation of Rs.2,24,800/- together with 8% interest from the date of filing of claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') i.e. 30.11:1998 till realization of the award excluding G certain periods (i.e. from 30.11.1998 to 1.8.2000 and 10.9.2001 to 4.2.2002). The insurer was held liable to compensate the claimant. -,, Background facts as projected by the claimant in the claim petition were that her son Pradeep Kumar lost his life on 4.10.1998 on account of vehicular accident involving Tata Tempo No. DL-l-B-8441 which was H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. I S.C.R. A allegedly being· driven rashly and negligently by Rohani Prasad respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as.the 'driver'). The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident. The offending vehicle belonged to Dev ender Kumar, (respondent 'no.3) (hereinafter referred to as the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.