SARDARI & ORS. versus SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 04-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 929 
r 
SARDARI & ORS. 
A 
> 
v 
SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1733 of 2008) 
MARCH 4, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURAKAR, JJ.] 
·~ 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Motor accident - Death 
caused - Driver of the offending vehicle admittedly not holding 
licence - Compensation - Liability to pay - Held: Liability to c 
pay the compensation is not on the insurance company since 
the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding licence -
However, driver and owner of the vehicle are liable. 
Appellants filed application seeking compensation 
under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for death caused in an D 
accident with a tractor. Insurance Company contended 
that it was not liable to pay the compensation as the driver 
of the tractor did not hold a licence. The driver in his 
examination/cross-examination admitted that he did not 
hold a licene. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal E 
denied the grant of compensation. High Court held that 
the claimants were liable to compensation from the owner 
and driver of the vehicle and not from the insurance 
Company. Hence the present appeal. 
J 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
,. 
HELD: 1.1 Although, in terms of a contract of 
insurance, which is in the realm of private law domain 
having regard to the object for which Sections 147 and 
149 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been enacted, the social G 
justice doctrine as envisaged in the preamble of the 
Constitution of India has been given due importance. The 
Act, however, itself provides for the cases where the 
insurance Company can avoid its liability. Avoidance of 
929 
H 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A such liability would largely depend upon violation of the 
'f 
conditions of contract of insurance. Where the breach of 
conditions of contract is ex-facie apparent from the 
records, the Court will not fasten the liability on the 
Insurance Company. In certain situations, however, the 
B Court while fastening the liability on the owner of the 
vehicle may direct the Insurance Company to pay to the 
claimants the awarded amount with liberty to it to recover 
~-
the same from the owner. [Para 6] [~32-E, F, G; 933-A] 
1.2 The concurrent finding of fact in the present case 
c is that the driver never held a license. The owner of the 
vehicle has a statutory obligation to see that the driver of 
the vehicle whom he authorized to drive the same holds 
a valid license. [Para 7] [933-A, B] 
D 
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gian Chand and Ors. 
1997 (7) SCC 558; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran 
Singh and Ors. 2004 (3) SCC 297; National Insurance Co. 
Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 250; New India 
Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal JT 2007 (13) SC 246; 
E 
Premkumari and Ors. vs. Prahlad Dev and Ors. 2008 (1) 
SCALE 531 - relied on. 
Oriental Insurance Co. Limited vs. Prithvi Raj 2008 (1) 
SCALE 727; lshwar Chandra and Ors. vs. The Oriental 
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2007 (4) SCALE 292 - referred 
to. 
L. 
F 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1733 
' 
of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and order dated 10/4/2003 of 
G the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.0. 
No. 737/1986. 
Shalu Sharma for the Appellants. 
M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat and Shivaji M. Jadhav for the 
H Respondents. 
SARDARI & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS. 
931 
[S.B. SINHA, J.] 
t 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
1. Jagiru was a tonga driver. While, he was driving his tonga 
on 10.2.1985, he met with an accident, as it collided with a tractor 
bearing Registration No. HYC 173. In the said accident, he B 
received injuries and ultimately expired on 15.2.1985. At the 
·<!-
time of his death, he was aged 40 years. 
An application for payment of compensation by the 
appellants was filed in terms of Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1939 (for short "the Act"). Respondent Insurance Company c 
inter alia raised a contention therein that the driver of the said 
tractor did not hold a valid and effective license. 
2. Before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (The 
Tribunal), the driver of the said Tractor, Sushil Kumar was D 
examined. He categorically stated that he did not know how to 
drive a tractor and he never even tried to learn driving of the 
tractor. He admitted that he had not been possessing any valid 
driving license to drive a tractor. It was accepted by him that he 
had even never applied therefor. He also, in answer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.