Driver Having Invalid Licence On Date Of Accident Violates Terms & Conditions Of Insurance Policy By Owner: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has held that when the driving licence is not valid on the date of accident, it constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of the offending vehicle by allowing such driver to drive the vehicle without valid licence.
The Court was considering an Appeal against MACT order in a case filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.
The single-bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed, "Furthermore, when the driving licence is not valid on the date of accident, it constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of the offending vehicle by allowing such driver to drive the vehicle without valid licence. In such a situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants considering the Motor Vehicles Act is social beneficial legislation and then recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle."
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Uday Shankar Chattopadhyay while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Afroze Alam.
The Appeal raises mainly three-fold grounds and one of them was that the Tribunal was wrong in casting the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle holding that the driver’s driving licence was invalid on the date of accident but ignored that the said licence had been renewed by the driver. The Insurance Company raised a specific plea that the driver had no valid licence at the time of the accident and produced one official from the Office of RTO. He produced Official State Register of Driving Licence and one information slip on two occasions. It was it was found that the driving licence of the concerned driver was valid up to 06.01.2006 but the accident occurred on 23.01.2008. So, on the date of accident, the driver did not possess a valid driving licence.
The Court found no merit in the claim of the appellants that the driver renewed the licence as neither renewed driving licence nor any supporting document was produced before the Tribunal or Court to satisfy the contention.
The Court cited Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Ram v. Nirmala and Others wherein it was held that the Insurance Company is required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In the said case, the owner-cum- driver produced a licence that was fake and another licence which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and it was renewed more than two years after the expiry. Accordingly, the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Sri Barun Mukherjee and Another vs National Insurance Company Limited & Others
Appearances:
Appellant- Advocate Uday Shankar Chattopadhyay, Advocate Trisha Rakshit, Advocate Rajashree Tah
Respondent- Advocate Afroze Alam
Click here to read/ download Judgement:
