ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. PRITAM KUMAR BURMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited takes exception to a judgment dated 17.08.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding compensation of Rs.3,40,200.00 awarded in favour of the first Respondent, the Claims Tribunal rejected the Appellant's plea of breach of terms of policy and made it liable to pay the compensation.

(2.) THE only ground raised at the time of hearing is that the Appellant Insurance Company successfully proved the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy as the licence held by the driver, that is, Respondent No.2 Tara Prasad was proved to be fake; the Claims Tribunal, erred in holding that the Appellant failed to prove that the driving licence was fake.

(3.) IN Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21; the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court while referring to Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that this Section cannot be interpreted in a technical manner. Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) only enables the Insurance Company to defend the liability to pay the compensation on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) including that there has been a contravention of the condition excluding the vehicle being driven by any person who is not duly licensed. It was held that if the person who has got the vehicle insured is allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person who is not duly licensed then only that clause shall be attracted. The Supreme Court held that the insurer has to satisfy the Tribunal that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was willful. The relevant part of the report is extracted hereunder:-