JARNAIL SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE owner of the vehicle who was saddled with the liabilityfor death of a pillion rider on a scooter is in appeal. The Insurance Company had denied before the Tribunal its liability on the ground that there had been violation of the terms of the insurance policy and there has been no liability for such payment. This omnibus defence for the insurance was understood by the parties in the context of evidence led on two aspects: one, whether there was a valid insurance cover to provide for protection for death of a pillion rider by the terms of policy and two, whether a driver of the insured 'svehicle had a driving licence.

(2.) ON the issue of the terms of the policy, the Tribunal held that it was an Act Policy and therefore, there was no liability for making the insurer liable for death of the pillion rider. Learned counsel appearing for the owner/appellant points out that the Tribunal had committed mistake in talcing the policy as providing a cover only to third party when it was a package policy for which extra premium had been paid. Premium details stipulated in the policy read as follows, which are unfortunately without the various heads against which amounts have been collected. There is also no evidence during the trial, explaining the various 00 93:00 160:00 50:00 303:00 Less 50:00 253:00 25:00 278:00

(3.) THE Insurance Company had another ground urged before the Tribunal namely that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the relevant time. This was considered by the Tribunal under issue No. 3 where it found that the driving licence had been renewed after the expiry. Although it was after the period of the accident, the contention of the owner of the vehicle was as if to state that if there was a renewal it should be taken as renewal even for the period when the driving licence was not effective and valid. This observation and reasoning of the Tribunal is erroneous and conflicts with the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court at least in three recent decisions. "i) National Insurance Company V/s. Jarnail Singh and others, (2007) 15 SCC 28; ii) National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Vidya Dhar.2 (2008 - 4)152 PLR 746; iii) New India Insurance Company V/s. Suresh Chander Aggarwal,3 (2009) 15 SCC 761. It is therefore, wrong to assume that if a renewal takes place even beyond a period of expiry, namely 30 days from the date of expiry of the licence as required to be done under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the licence could be taken to be valid and effective. If at all, such a characteristic could be attributed to a driving licence, it would apply only for the period when the renewal is effected and when the driving licence itself stipulates the period of its validity. In this case, the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence between the period of 9.02.2000 to 10.03.2005. The accident had taken place on 10.11.2001. The application for renewal itself appears to have been made only in the year 2005 and secured it on 11.03.2005. The driver was therefore, clearly not duly licenced and there had been a breach of terms of the policy that would enable the insurer the recovery against the insured owner of the vehicle.