METTALIC (P) LTD. Vs. HARVINDER KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeals as they arise out of the same accident. The above mentioned FAO No. 6200 of 2012 is by the owner pleading for an indemnity for driving a vehicle with light motor vehicle licence. According to him, the vehicle was a light motor vehicle, as per the registration certificate and consequently, the licence must have been taken as an effective one to find the insurer fully liable.

(2.) The plea of the insurance company that was accepted was that it was a goods vehicle and insured as such and consequently, the licence required a transport vehicle endorsement under Sec. 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The endorsement was not so made and, therefore, the driver could not be taken as having a valid effective driving licence. The Tribunal accepted the defence and found the owner to be not entitled to indemnity and that the driving licence was not an effective and they resulted a breach of condition of the policy.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Swaran Singh and others : (2004 -1) 136 PLR 510 (S.C) that dealt with an issue of whether a fake driving licence could be treated as such when there was renewal of a fake licence but which was genuine. The judgment in Swaran Singh's case (supra) is an authority that the renewal of fake one is also a fake one. The Supreme Court, however, examined some exceptional situations where the requirement of driving licence itself was not necessary such as when the accident had taken place without any activity on the part of the driver. That was the only situation when the particulars of a driving licence was treated as irrelevant. This was a case when the vehicle was on the run at the time when the accident had taken place. The above judgment is also an authority to administer the principle of pay and recovery. The Court was holding that the third party cannot come by any harm by any breach of terms of the policy and that the insurance company shall always be liable to pay. Full exoneration of the insurance company even for a third party claimant, the court observed, was not possible. In this case, the insurance company has been given the right of recovery which conforms to the law laid down in Swaran Singh's case (supra). The judgment relied by the appellant cannot help him in any way.