National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Rawansh Choudhary & Ors.

Since both these appeals are arising out of the same incident challenging the awards dated 06.05.2023 and award 06.05.2023 passed by the learned First Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narmadapuram, in Claim Case Nos.4/2020 and 3/2020 respectively, these were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

The present appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been preferred by the appellant/National Insurance Company Limited assailing the awards dated 06.05.2023 and 06.05/2023 passed in Claim Case Nos.4/2020 and 3/2020 respectively by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narmadapuram, whereby compensation of Rs.2,32,774/- in Claim Case No.4/2020 and Rs.4,96,000/- in Claim Case No.3/2020 respectively along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal committed grave error in fastening liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company despite there being a clear breach of policy conditions. It is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The licence had expired on 05.09.2019 and was not renewed till the date of the accident i.e. 18.10.2019. It is further submitted that the driver was not authorized to drive a heavy transport vehicle. It is further submitted that the the photocopy of driving licence of non-applicant No.2/driver Mahesh Dhurve produced before Tribunal by the non-applicant No.1 and 2/owner and driver, the same is evident from the document which has been filed by non-applicant No.1. Since the non-applicant No.1 and 2 relying in said driving licence, in such a situation, it is not necessary to appellant/Insurance Company to prove the aforesaid document by evidence. It is the duty of the owner and driver i.e. respondent No.2 and 3/non-applicant No.1 and 2 in M.A. No.4779/2023 and respondent No.3 and 4/non-applicant No.1 and 2 to prove the driving licence of non-applicant No.2/driver Mahesh Dhurve, which was valid for transport vehicle till 05.09.2019. The accident took place on 18.10.2019.

During the course of argument on dated 15.04.2026, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3/owner and driver in M.A. No.4779/2023 and counsel for respondent No.3 and 4/owner and driver in M.A. No.4781/2023 had sought one week's time to place on record the driving licence of respondent No.3/driver Mahesh Kumar Dhurve and he had filed the details of driving licence of Mahesh Kumar on 23.04.2026.

As the driver has produced a copy of his driving licence and from the said licence, it appears that the licence was not valid for driving the offending vehicle. In such circumstances, it is not necessary to examine the R.T.O. on this aspect, as the driving licence itself shows that the driver was not authorised or competent to drive the offending vehicle.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another; (2018) 3 SCC 208.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/claimant in M.A. No.4779/2023 and respondent No.1 and 2/claimants in M.A. No. 4781/2023 supported the impugned award and submitted that the claimants are third parties and cannot be deprived of compensation on account of inter se disputes between the insurer and the insured. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 1 ACCD 412 (SC) and submitted that even where breach of policy conditions is proved, the proper course is to direct the insurer to satisfy the award first and thereafter recover the amount from the owner and driver.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and 3/owner and driver in M.A. No.4779/2023 and respondent No.3 and 4/owner and driver submitted that the appellant/Insurance Company has failed to establish willful breach of policy conditions on the part of the insured. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2014 (4) ACC 640 , to contend that unless conscious and willful breach is proved, the insurer cannot avoid its liability.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

As per said document i.e. driving licence filed by respondent No.2 and 3/owner and driver in M.A. No.4779/2023 and respondent No.3 and 4/owner and driver in M.A. No.4781/2023, it appears that the driving licence was issued by the R.T.O. on 12.09.2014 in name of Mahesh Kumar and said licence is valid till 15.02.2032 for non-transport and the same is valid till 09.05.2028 for transport. As per the detail given by R.T.O. on the back side of said licence, it appears that the licence was issued for transport vehicle on 06.09.2016 and it was valid for three years till 05.09.2019. Thereafter, the licence was renewed again for transport vehicle for 10.05.2023 to 09.05.2028. While the date of accident is 18.10.2019, therefore, it appears that at the time of accident, the driver Mahesh Kumar Dhurve did not posses the valid driving licence for transport vehicle. As per the award, it appears that the accident was occurred by vehicle Dumper No.MH-40-Y -1570 and at that time Mahesh Dhurve was driving the said vehicle, therefore, it is proved that on the date of incident, respondent No3/non-applicant No.2/driver Mahesh Dhurve had no valid driving licence.

It is appropriate to mention here that in this case, the owner and driver had also participated in the Tribunal proceeding and they had filed the photocopy of the driving licence, it means they have relied on the said document and also it is the duty of the respondents to prove that at the time of incident respondent No.3/non-applicant No.2/driver Maheh Dhurve was possessing a valid driving licence. In this regard, three judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law in Pappu and others V. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another; 2018(1) ACCD 412 (SC.

It is also settled that where a party produces a document and the contents of such document go against the interest of the producing party, the Court is entitled to read and rely upon the contents of the document without formal proof or admission, as it is presumed that the producing party has relied upon and accepted the said document.

Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the appellant Insurance Company on the date of the accident. However, the material available on record indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the heavy transport vehicle on the date of the accident. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard that at the time of accident non-applicant No.2/driver Mahesh Kumar was possessing a valid driving licence is incorrect.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pappu and Others (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that although the insurer cannot be completely exonerated vis-à-vis third party claimants, the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed. The award dated 06.05.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narmadapuram, in Claim Case Nos.4/2020 and 3/2020 is modified to the extent that the appellant/Insurance Company shall first pay the award amount along with accrued interest in favour of the claimants, if not already paid, and thereafter shall be entitled to recover the same from Respondents/owner and driver of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. The remaining findings of the Tribunal shall remain intact.

Record of the Claim Tribunal be sent back.