Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim where the original claimants, legal representatives of the deceased Santosh Chitakalwar, filed an appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim, dated 08-10-2010. The Tribunal had exonerated the insurance company (respondent no.2) from liability on the ground that the driver of the offending tractor did not possess a valid driving license, and directed the owner (respondent no.1) to pay compensation of Rs.12,37,600/- along with other benefits. The claimants challenged the exoneration of the insurance company and also sought enhancement of compensation. The key legal issues were whether the driver held a valid license, on whom the burden of proof lies, and whether the court can direct the insurance company to pay first and recover from the owner. The appellants argued that the driver had a valid LMV license and no endorsement was required to drive a transport vehicle, relying on Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Company. The insurance company argued that the burden of proof was on the owner, relying on Pappu vs Vinod Kumar Lamba. The court held that the driver was possessing a valid driving license, and the burden to prove absence of license lies first on the owner and then on the insurance company. The court found that the Tribunal was not totally right in exonerating the insurance company and directed that the insurance company should pay the compensation first and then recover from the owner if there is a breach of policy terms.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Driving License - Burden of Proof - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 149, 166 - The court considered whether the driver of the offending tractor possessed a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The burden to prove absence of a valid license lies first on the owner and then on the insurance company. The court held that the driver was holding a valid license and the insurance company could not be exonerated entirely. (Paras 1-4) B) Motor Accident Claims - Pay and Recover - Breach of Policy Terms - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 149, 166 - The court examined whether the Claims Tribunal was right in exonerating the insurance company. The court held that the insurance company should be directed to pay the compensation first and then recover from the owner if there is a breach of policy terms. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license; on whom the burden to prove the fact of not holding a license lies; and whether the court can direct the insurance company to pay first and then recover from the owner.
Final Decision
The court held that the driver was possessing a valid driving license, the burden to prove absence of license lies first on the owner and then on the insurance company, and the Tribunal was not totally right in exonerating the insurance company. The court directed the insurance company to pay compensation first and then recover from the owner if there is a breach of policy terms.
Law Points
- Burden of proof regarding absence of valid driving license lies first on owner and then on insurance company
- Endorsement on LMV license not required for driving transport vehicle
- Pay and recover principle applicable in case of breach of policy terms
