ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SIVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question, which disturbs our judicial conscience, arises in these two appeals. The question is as to whether, the fact that the driver whose negligence in driving the vehicle caused accident in a motor accident claim, had only a fake driving licence, which was not known to the owner of the vehicle, would result in a situation where neither the driver nor the owner would not be liable to reimburse to the insurance company, the amount paid by the insurance company to the claimants, on account of the violation of the policy condition that the driver driving the insured vehicle should possess a valid driving licence. The question arises in the following fact situation:

(2.) The contention of the appellant is that once it is proved that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive a vehicle, then the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, since the policy specifically stipulated that vehicle shall be driven only by a person, who possesses a valid driving licence to drive the kind of vehicle covered by the policy. The appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujata Arora & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2129.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle submits that the mere absence of licence is not sufficient to make the owner liable to reimburse the amount paid by the insurance company to the claimants to the insurance company. For the same, there must be a further finding that the owner had permitted the driver to drive the vehicle with the knowledge that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. It is submitted that in this case, the forgery of the licence was so perfect that even the police could not detect that the same was a forged one. It was only after ascertaining from the concerned R.T.O. that it was confirmed that such a licence was never issued to the 1st respondent-driver from the office of the R.T.O. That being so, the owner cannot be faulted for the 1st respondent driving the vehicle without a valid licence is the contention. In such circumstances, the owner cannot be saddled with the liability to reimburse the amount paid by the insurance company to the claimants is the submission of the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle. The advocate for the second respondent relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Co., 2013 4 KerLT 21. He further points out that insofar as Pepsu Road Transport Corporation's case was later in point of time, the same having been pronounced on 26.8.2013, the same should be followed, instead of the decision in Sujata Arora's case , which was decided on 10.1.2012, both decisions having been rendered by two Judge benches.