The High Court of Jharkhand while upholding the award passed by the tribunal in a motor accident claim case held that insurance companies to avoid their liabilities must not only establish the available defence raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle and the burden proof where for would be on them and the insurance company is required to prove the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by cogent evidence.
Brief Facts:
The. The present appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Award passed in a motor accident claim case whereby and whereunder the claim case filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (claimants) was allowed and a sum of Rs.7,44,000/- along with an interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum has been awarded as compensation.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned award is perverse and not based on materials on record the tribunal has failed to appreciate that the applicant produced all valid vehicular documents of the minibus but could not produce the driving license of its driver and permits which gave rise presumption that the driver of the minibus did not possess driving license and it was being plied without a valid permit. Further, it was argued that since the owner of the minibus did not appear despite valid service of notice and in view of the specific assertion made by the appellant, the learned Tribunal ought to have presumed that the driver of the minibus was not in possession of a valid and effective driving license and it was being plied without a valid permit.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that there is no presumption of violation of terms and conditions of policy rather the insurance company has to prove the violations with cogent and reliable evidence and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that in the present case, both the owners have not appeared nor the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been proved by any of the insurance companies and further it is the burden on the insurance company to prove and not the burden of the applicants to prove the fact that there was any breach of terms and conditions of the contract of insurance arrived between the owner and the insurance company.
Further, the court referred to the judgement in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & Anr. wherein it was held that ‘the breach of policy condition has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver of driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties.’
Further, the court stated that insurance companies to avoid their liabilities must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish a “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden proof where for would be on them and the the insurance company is required to prove the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by cogent evidence. In the event, the insurance company fails to prove that, there has been a breach of conditions of the policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability.
Further, it was stated that in the present case, no materials have been brought on record by the appellant-insurance company that the offending vehicle was being driven by any unauthorized person or the person driving the vehicle did not have valid driving license and the insurance company has issued no notice against the insured to produce the driving license of the deceased driver or permit under the provision of Indian Evidence Act, in order to raise a presumption under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the insured.
The decision of the Court:
The court did not find any irregularity in the impugned order and upheld it.
Case Title: National Insurance Company vs Janki Debi and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: M.A. No.315 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Manish Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vikash Kumar, Mr. Sourav Kumar and Mr. Parambir Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
