LAWS(KER)-2018-7-500

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. C NARAYANAN

Decided On July 18, 2018
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
C Narayanan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is from the award of the Tribunal, by the Insurance Company who was mulcted with the liability and not allowed to recover the amounts from the registered owner on ground of violation of policy conditions.

(2.) A pedestrian, the mother of the claimants, was hit by a motor cycle driven by the 5th respondent, which was insured with the appellant. The 5th respondent was the registered owner, who was riding the motor cycle at the time of accident. The victim in the accident died instantaneously. Before the Tribunal the Insurance Company contended that the 5th respondent did not have a valid driving licence. The Insurance Company pointed to the charge sheet produced by the claimants and contended that the 5th respondent had categorically stated before the police that he had no driving licence. The Insurance Company also filed an interlocutory application for a direction to the 5th respondent to produce the driving licence. The 5th respondent though received notice, did not appear before the Tribunal; nor was the licence produced. Even then the Tribunal found that there cannot be any conclusion arrived at merely for reason of the insured having not produced the driving licence.

(3.) Absence of driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is a violation of policy conditions, as has been statutorily prescribed under Section 149(2)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "MV Act"]. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that Exhibit A2 chargesheet shows that the 5th respondent, who was the accused therein, had remitted the fine for reason of the absence of driving licence. The Tribunal definitely ought to have looked into it. In the above circumstances, it has to be found that the 5th respondent, who was the driver of the vehicle, did not have a licence. The 5th respondent was also the registered owner of the vehicle and, hence, the liability to pay the compensation is squarely upon the 5th respondent for reason of violation of the policy condition.