Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Pyari Devi and Ors.

Patna HC11 Jul 2013MA/225/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed an insurance company's appeal challenging a motor accident claim award. Upholding the tribunal's decision, the court held that invalid or fake driving licences alone do not exempt insurers from liability absent proof that the vehicle owner was a conscious participant contributing to the accident.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the statutory amount is remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Pyari Devi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Appeal No.225 of 2011

¶3

====================================================== National Insurance Co. Ltd, through its Divisional Manager, Division Office I, Arunachal Building, Exhibition Road, District-Patna represented through its Chief Regional Manager and the constituted attorney, Regional Office, National Insurance Company Ltd. 4^th Floor-Sone Bhawan, B.C. Patel Marg, P.S. Sachivalaya, District-Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Ram Pyari Devi, W/o late Srawan Kumar 2. Chitranjan Prasad, S/o Late Srawan Kumar 3. Reena Kumari, D/o Late Srawan Kumar All are residents of village-Bahri Dhawalpura, P.O. Begampur, P.S. By-pass, District-Patna 4. Shahid Ali Siddqui, S/o of Late Hasi Saukat Ali Siddiqui, resident of Purana Kila, P.O. Siwan, District-Siwan 5. Dharmendra Kumar Sah, S/o Bidharthi Sah, resident of village-Matihani Madho, P.O. Matihani Madho, P.S. Mirganj, District-Gopalganj .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶4

06. 11-07-2013 Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and Mr. Alok Kumara Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the claimantsrespondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶5

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is directed to the judgment and award dated 7.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna in Claim Case No. 451 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to allow the claim case and has directed the insurance company to make payment thereof

¶6

Patna High Court MA No.225 of 2011 (6) dt.11-07-2013

¶7

¶8

together with interest @ 6 per cent.

¶9

The only issue that has been raised in this appeal by Mr. Vikram appearing for the insurance company is that the driving licence of the driver was invalid. In support of his submission learned counsel has relied upon a report of the D.T.O., Gorakhpur i.e. the licencing authority mentioning that the licence was not issued in the name of Dharmendra Kumar Sah. He thus submits that in the circumstances the liability could not have been saddled on the insurance company. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1733 of 2008 (Sardari vs. Sushil Kumar) dated 4.3.2008. The reliance of learned counsel on the judgment rendered in the case of Sardari (supra) is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as the facts of the said case was completely different. In the said case, the driver himself had admitted that he did not know driving and had never driven a tractor. The judgment rendered on the facts governing the case of Sardari (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand. Insofar as the present case is concerned admittedly a driving licence bearing no. 1789/04 was filed in the tribunal which according to the insurance company was a fake document. Insofar as this objection is concerned, the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Swaran Singh

¶10

Patna High Court MA No.225 of 2011 (6) dt.11-07-2013

¶11

¶12

reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 which has been noted in a subsequent judgment of Meena Variyal reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428. In paragraph 16 of the judgment the Supreme Court while noting the judgment in Swaran Singh has held as follows:

¶13

“16…………Mere absence of or production of fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification or the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party. The insurance company to avoid liability, must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceeding concerned but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company. Whether such a burden had been discharged, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even when the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning a policy condition, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach of condition is so fundamental as to be found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The question whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out whether the driving licence produced by the driver was fake or not, will have to be determined in each case…………..”

¶14

It has been thus clearly laid down that a mere objection as

¶15

to an absence or fake driving licence on its own would not be

¶16

Patna High Court MA No.225 of 2011 (6) dt.11-07-2013

¶17

¶18

sufficient for the insurance company to avoid liability until such time that they are able to prove that owner of the offending vehicle was a conscious participant to the same and has contributed to the accident. No such case has been set up by the Insurance Company.

¶19

For the reasons aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment and award impugned. This appeal is dismissed.

¶20

Let the statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for its

¶21

disbursement in accordance with law.

¶22

Let the lower court records be also returned to the tribunal

¶23

concerned forthwith.

¶24

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶25

S.Sb/-

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Pyari Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Pyari Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Rai @ Kalam Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rajesh Yadav and Ors.

Birendra Rai and Ors. Vs Bahadur Rai and Ors.

Ali Hussain and Ors. Vs Md. Safiullah and Ors.

Rameshwar Pd. and Ors. Vs Dharm Nath Tiwari and Ors.

Mitra Vs Mrinmay Kumar Mitra and Ors.