NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. KANKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question raised in these four appeals is whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation on account of the alleged breach of condition regarding the person entitled to drive the vehicle.

(2.) FACTS , relevant for the disposal of the appeals, may be noticed. Accident of truck No. HIS-5255 took place on 1.3.1993 in which three persons died and one person sustained injuries. The dependents of the three deceased persons and the injured filed separate petitions, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking award of compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal consolidated all the four petitions and decided the same vide award dated 15.3.1995. The appellant, with whom the truck, in question, was insured, had taken the plea that respondent Liaquat Ali, who was alleged to have been driving the truck at the relevant time, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal rejected the said plea and ordered the insurer to pay the compensation.

(3.) THE Tribunal, vide award dated 29.4.2002, has returned the findings that in the first instance the appellant has not proved that the licence of respondent Liaquat Ali was fake and secondly even if it be assumed that the licence was fake, there was no evidence on record suggesting that the owner of the truck/insured knew or had reason to know that the licence was fake and, hence, he could not be said to have caused the breach of the condition of the policy that only a person possessing a valid licence was entitled to drive the vehicle.