Insurance Company Could Not Be Saddled With The Liability To Indemnify Where The Owner Did Not Discharge Onus Qua Validity Of DL Of Driver: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC
|The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court reiterated that the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to indemnify where the owner did not discharge initial onus qua the validity of the Driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle.
The Court held thus while hearing the Review Petition by the Owner of the Vehicle who was aggrieved by the decision of the High Court which partially allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company.
The bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “in view of the failure of the owners to discharge their initial onus the insurance company could not have been saddled with the liability to indemnify the insured, more so, when the insurance company had proved with clinching and credible evidence that the driving license possessed by the driver was fake/invalid.”
Brief Facts-
A claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag, by the legal heirs of one Tariq Ahmad Mir who had died at the age of 22 years in a vehicular accident after being hit by a Tata Sumo at Levdoora, Qazigund.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided in favour of the claimants and the insurance company was directed to pay a certain amount to them as compensation.
The High Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court passed in “Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another”, reported in 2018 ACJ 690 and held that given the failure of the owners to discharge the initial onus qua the validity of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, the insurance company could not have been saddled with the liability to indemnify the insured and consequently pay compensation to the claimants.
The High Court noted that in its decision whose review is sought, it reversed the finding of the Tribunal holding that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation, and thus directed the insurance company to first satisfy the award by paying the amount of compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover it from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle.
The Court further stated that it has been the consistent view of the Apex Court qua the doctrine of review that the same cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise nor can the power of review be exercised as an inherent power inasmuch as an order or decision or judgment under review cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or a different view could have been taken by the court on a point of fact or law.
The Court found the Review Petition without any merit and therefore, dismissed it.
Cause Title: Abdul Hamid Khandey v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others