Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Gita Devi on 27 November, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:35550
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 322 of 2007
National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Hindustan Building,
Bistupur, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Dist.-Singhbhum East
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Gita Devi, W/o Shri Kalyan Prasad Sinha mother of deceased
Bharat Sinha
2. Kalyam Prasad Sinha, S/o Late Shankar Dayal Lal father of the deceased
Bharat Sinha, both are R/o Jawahar Nagar, Road No. 14, Mango, P.O.-Azad
Nagar, P.S.-Azadnagar, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East
3. Rukshana Khatoon, W/o Wasi Mullah, R/o Road No. 12, Jawahar Nagar,
P.O. & P.S.-Mango, Mango Jamshedpur, Dist.-Singhbhum East
.... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant-Insurance Co. : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3 : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
22 / Dated : 27.11.2025
1. Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation in Compensation Case No. 82 of 2006, whereby and
whereunder, liability to pay compensation, under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act to the claimants, has been fixed on the Insurance
Company.
2. As per the case of the claimants, on 15.03.2006 at 21:00 hours,
deceased Bharat Sinha along with others were going to M.G.M.,
hospital by a police jeep to admit one patient which met with an
accident with a truck bearing Registration No. CG-04ZC-8601. It is
alleged that the said truck was being driven rashly and negligently
resulting in accident in which Bharat Sinha sustained fatal injuries and
died of it.
3. In pursuance of the notice, issued, the owner of the said truck had
appeared and contested the case, inter alia, on the ground that the
accident was not an outcome of the rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the said truck.
4. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding on the issue of the manner of
accident that it took place due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the truck and consequently, awarded compensation against
2025:JHHC:35550
the appellant Insurance Company which was admittedly the insurer of
the vehicle.
5. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company that the accident did not take place due to the driving of the
truck which was proceeding at a slow pace. As a matter of fact, the
speeding jeep, which was taking patient to the M.G.M. Hospital, met
with the accident due to the rash and negligent driving by its own
driver. This fact will be borne out by the newspaper report, which was
brought on record on behalf of the Insurance Company and marked as
Ext.Y for identification, wherein the accident has been attributed due
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep.
6. The second limb of the argument is that the driver of the vehicle was
not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.
In support of this contention, the Investigator of the Insurance
Company has been examined as O.P.W.1. Reliance is placed on Civil
Appeal No. 1213 of 2007 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16437 of
2006) (Ishwar Chandra and Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. and Ors.) and Civil Appeal Nos. 7220-7221 of 2011 (Beli Ram
Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.).
7. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-owner of the vehicle
submits that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the said truck. However, it is contended that
the vehicle was insured and was plying by the driver having valid
driving license and other relevant papers. Further the driver was never
disqualified and it was subsequently renewed also and, therefore, in
terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2004) 3 SCC
297 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others), it
will not amount to fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance
policy. O.P.W.1 has also deposed in para-8 of the cross-examination
that the driving license had been renewed for the period from
16.05.2001 to 28.04.2006 and it was never cancelled. Reliance is
placed on 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398 (IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Geeta Devi & Ors.).
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides,
the main point for determination before this Court is whether the
2025:JHHC:35550
finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding negligence
on the part of the driver of the truck suffers from any perversity to
warrant interference by this Court. The only material to rebut the
finding is the newspaper clipping which cannot be accepted to set
aside the said finding regarding the rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the offending truck.
9. Further, the matter for consideration before this Court is whether the
owner can be held liable for breach of terms of the insurance policy
under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act for failure of the driver
to renew the driving license within the stipulated time of 30 days. The
ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297
"110. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of
the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in
sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have
been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the
insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or
disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are
not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either
the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the
insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of
negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of
fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by
a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at
the relevant time.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of
the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of
a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during
the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its
liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches
on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are
found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The
Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the
rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach"
to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of
the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable
care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the
driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements
of law or not will have to be determined in each case."
The ratio of 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398 IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) (para 16) is also to the same effect
10. Under the above stated position of fact and law, I do not find any
infirmity in the impugned award.
2025:JHHC:35550
This Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending, I.A. if any,
stands disposed of.
Statutory amount deposited by the Appellant- Insurance Company
to be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants against
the final compensation amount.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
Uploaded
28.11.2025
