ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. INDIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company is not liable in this case to pay the compensation inasmuch as the driver of the vehicle, involved in the accident, did not have an effective licence on the date of the accident. THE accident occurred on 28. 9. 1992. THE licence which he had, expired on 26. 6. 1992. That was renewed only on 26. 10. 1992. In between the two dates, the accident had occurred. Hence, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the exclusion clause in the policy will come into play.

(2.) THE relevant clause in the insurance policy which is marked as Ex. A-9 reads thus: "provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. " Learned counsel for the appellant submits that previously such exclusion clauses in the insurance policy were differently worded and when courts had held that even if the driver of the vehicle had no effective subsisting licence at the time of the accident the insurance company cannot escape from this liability, the latter took care to alter the language of the clauses, with the result, the present clause reads in the manner in which it is now seen. It is contended that the clause only means that a person should have an effective driving licence at the time of the accident, and if he is disqualified from holding the licence or he is disqualified from obtaining such licence, then also the exclusion clauses will apply. We are unable to accept this construction of the clause. THE clause can be divided into three parts. THE first part refers to a person holding an effective driving licence at the time of the accident. THE second part refers to the disqualification of such person from holding it. Even after obtaining a licence, a person may get disqualified under the provisions of the Act from holding it and such person will be governed by the second part. THE third part refers to persons who are disqualified from obtaining such a licence. THE first part cannot go together with the third part. In other words, if a person is having an effective driving licence he cannot be said to be disqualified from obtaining such a licence. It means if there is an effective valid licence, it could be contended by the insurance company that he is subsequently disqualified from holding it, but it is not open to the company to contend that he was disqualified from obtaining that licence.

(3.) WE have no doubt that the burden is on the insurance company to prove that the driver of the vehicle is disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. Admittedly, on the facts of the case, it is seen that the driver had renewed the licence on 26. 10. 1992. That itself shows that he was not disqualified. If in respect of the licence, the insurance company contends that the driver was disqualified from obtaining licence, it should have let in sufficient evidence in that regard. That burden has not been discharged by the insurance company in this case.