Page No.# 1/5 vs Smt Malabika Patir Taye And 6 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7050 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs Smt Malabika Patir Taye And 6 Ors on 5 September, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                 Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010209402016




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:12050

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                       Case No. : MACApp./384/2016

         NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
         BUILDING, 87 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400001 AND
         REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-5



         VERSUS

         SMT MALABIKA PATIR TAYE and 6 ORS
         W/O LATE MANOJ KR TAYE, R/O VILL. BAIKUNTHAPUR, P.O. LAIMEKURI,
         P.S. JONAI, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN CODE

         2:SMT. REBIKA TAYE
          D/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR TAYE
          R/O VILL. BAIKUNTHAPUR
          P.O. LAIMEKURI
          P.S. JONAI
          DIST. DHEMAJI
         ASSAM
          PIN CODE

         3:SMTI LEVIYA TAYE
          D/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR TAYE
          R/O VILL. BAIKUNTHAPUR
          P.O. LAIMEKURI
          P.O. JONAI
          DIST. DHEMAJI
         ASSAM
          PIN CODE

         4:SERIAN TAYE
          S/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR TAYE
          R/O VILL. BAIKUNTHAPUR
                                                                     Page No.# 2/5

           P.O. LAIMEKURI
           P.O. JONAI
           DIST. DHEMAJI
           ASSAM
           PIN CODE

           5:JEVISH TAYE
            S/O LATE MAJOJ KUMAR TAYE
            R/O VILL. BAIKUNTHAPUR
            P.O. LAIMEKURI
            P.O. JONAI
            DIST. DHEMAJI
           ASSAM
            PIN CODE-

           6:MR. OSING MENGU
            S/O LATE OSAN MENGU
            R/O VILL. RASSAM
            P.O. BALEK
            P.S. PASIGHAT
           AURNACHAL PRADESH
            DIST. EAST SIANG
            PIN CODE

           7:MR. RAJIB BORI

           S/O SATISH BORI
           R/O VILL. BAIKUNTHAPUR
           P.O. LAIMEKURI
           DIST. DHEMAJI
           ASSAM
           PIN CODE

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S DUTTA, MS.P DOWERAH,MR.L SARMA,MS.M
CHOUDHURY,MR.S THAKURIA,MS.N MODI,MR.SIDHANT DUTTA

Advocate for the Respondent : MS.I SARMA, ,,,,MR.M TALUKDAR,

Page No.# 3/5

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Appellant : Mrs. M. Choudhury, Advocate.

                      For the Respondents:                  Mr. M. Talukdar,
                                                            Advocate.

                      Date of Hearing :                     12.08.2025.
                      Date of Judgment:                     05.09.2025.


                 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mrs. M. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.3, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No.1629/2013.

3. On 15.08.213 at about 8.30 P.M., late Manoj Kumar Taye @ Manuj was going home on foot by the side of the National Highway No.53 at Rakut Koke (Laimekuri). At that time, the motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263 had hit him. He sustained serious injury and on the way to the hospital on 16.08.2013, he succumbed to his injuries. His wife, son and daughter have filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The deceased Manoj Kumar Taye @ Manuj was 42 years old and was working as an Assistant Teacher in Tadunia L.P. School drawing a monthly salary of ₹22,721/-. The motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263 was insured by the present appellant Insurance Company vide Policy No.5300431/3020000/ 1509 that was valid up to 06.06.2014. The driver of the motorcycle had a valid driving licence and he did not contest the claim case.

5. The appellant Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing written statement. The only substantial plea taken by the Insurance Company was that the driver of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving licence.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following two issues:

I. Whether on 15.08.2013 at about 8.30 P.M. at Rakut Koke (Laimekuri) under Jonai Police Station, on the National Highway No.52, a motor vehicle accident has arisen due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263 on the part of its driver and the said accident has caused the death of Manoj Kumar Taye?

II. If so, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation for the death of Manoj Kumar Taye in the said accident and if so, what should be the quantum and who amongst the opposite parties, is/are liable to pay the compensation?

7. During the hearing, the claimants' side only examined only 2(two) witnesses whereas the Page No.# 4/5

Insurance Company examined 3(three) witnesses.

8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court awarded an amount of ₹39,82,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition till full payment.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

10. According to the appellant Insurance Company, it examined the DTO, Nalbari to prove that the driving licence of the driver of the motorcycle being DL No.1432/NB/2008/MISC was issued in the name a person called Deep Kumar Baro, not in the name of Rajib Bori who was driving the motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263 at the time of the accident. The appellant further claimed that the learned Tribunal agreed that the driver Rajib Bori driving the motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09- A-3263 did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident.

11. I have carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Tribunal and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531, has held that where there is no valid driving licence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. The Tribunal disagreed with the Insurance Company on the ground that there was no willful violation of any of the policy conditions by the owner of the vehicle.

13. On the point of an accident caused by person who did not have a valid driving licence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba, (2018) 3 SCC 208 has held as under:

"17. This issue has been answered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] In that case, it was contended by the insurance company that once the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the liability only on the owner and/or the driver of the vehicle. However, this Court held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and, in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three-Judge Bench, after analysing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well-settled principle. In para 107, the Court then observed thus : (SCC p. 340) "107. We may, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal and the court must, however, exercise their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realise the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in execution of the same award having regard to the provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it had not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefor Page No.# 5/5

against the owner or the driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to the notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not given an opportunity to defend at all. Such a course of action may also be resorted to when a fraud or collusion between the victim and the owner of the vehicle is detected or comes to the knowledge of the insurer at a later stage."

14. In Swaran Singh (supra), it was held that where there is no valid driving licence the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall go for recovering the said amount from the owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration AR-09-A-3263.

15. With the aforesaid direction, the present appeal is disposed of. The statutory deposit shall be returned.

Send back the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant