Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No.891 of 1999, dated 4.7.2008. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.1,05,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum to the claimant (respondent no.1, now deceased, represented by legal representatives) for injuries sustained in a motor accident involving a Bajaj Scooty bearing registration No.MH31/AA9407. The Tribunal imposed joint and several liability on the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle (respondent no.2). The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the driver was a minor below 16 years, which violated Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus the owner had breached the policy conditions by allowing an unlicensed minor to drive. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in holding the Insurer liable, and that only the owner should be responsible. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Ors., 2008 ACJ 2855, where the Insurer was exonerated because the driver was a 15-year-old minor. However, the High Court noted that in the present case, the Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove that the owner had knowledge that the driver was a minor or that the owner permitted the minor to drive. The Court held that the burden of proving breach of policy conditions lies on the Insurer, and in the absence of such proof, the Insurer cannot avoid liability. The Court also observed that the vehicle was a Bajaj Scooty with 60 cc engine capacity, and the driver's age was not conclusively established. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's award was upheld.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Minor Driver - Breach of Policy - Sections 3, 4, 5, 149(2)(a)(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Insurance Company sought to avoid liability on the ground that the driver was a minor below 16 years, violating Section 4. The Court held that the Insurer failed to prove that the owner knowingly permitted the minor to drive, and thus the breach was not established. The Tribunal's award of joint and several liability was upheld. (Paras 3-5)
B) Motor Accident Compensation - Liability of Insurer - Burden of Proof - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove that the owner had knowledge of the driver's disqualification. In the absence of such proof, the Insurer cannot avoid liability. The Court relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Ors., 2008 ACJ 2855, but distinguished it on facts. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Insurance Company can avoid liability for compensation on the ground that the offending vehicle was driven by a minor below 16 years, constituting a breach of Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and policy conditions.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 4.7.2008 in Claim Petition No.891 of 1999 is upheld. The Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Law Points
- Motor accident compensation
- minor driver
- breach of insurance policy
- joint and several liability
- Sections 3
- 4
- 5
- 149(2)(a)(ii) Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 98
First Appeal No.939 of 2011
Mr. B. Lahiri for appellant; Mrs. M.H. Pathade for L.Rs. of respondent no.1
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Umashankar s/o. Narmadaprasad Dubey (Dead) through L.Rs. : a) Sushilabai wd/o. Umashankar Dubey, b) Bindiya w/o. Vinod Tiwari; and Madanmohan s/o. Hiralal Mahule
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award
Remedy Sought
Insurance Company sought to avoid liability for compensation on ground of breach of policy conditions due to minor driver
Filing Reason
Insurance Company challenged Tribunal's order imposing joint and several liability on Insurer and owner
Previous Decisions
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.891 of 1999 awarded Rs.1,05,500 with interest at 7.5% p.a. against both Insurer and owner
Issues
Whether the Insurance Company can avoid liability on the ground that the driver was a minor below 16 years, violating Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Whether the Tribunal erred in imposing joint and several liability on the Insurer?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/Insurer argued that the offending vehicle was a Bajaj Scooty with 60 cc engine, and a person below 16 years could not drive it in a public place, constituting breach of Section 4 and policy conditions. The owner allowed a minor to drive, so only owner should be liable.
Respondent no.1's counsel argued that the Insurer failed to prove breach of policy conditions, and the Tribunal correctly imposed joint liability.
Ratio Decidendi
The Insurance Company failed to prove that the owner knowingly permitted a minor to drive the vehicle, and thus the breach of policy conditions under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not established. The burden of proof lies on the Insurer to show that the owner had knowledge of the driver's disqualification. In the absence of such proof, the Insurer cannot avoid liability.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant/Insurance Company has questioned the judgment and order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.891 of 1999 on 4.7.2008 whereby it was held that the claimant was entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,05,500/ along with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.
It is the case of the appellant/Insurer that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.MH31/AA9407 was a Bajaj Scooty with engine capacity of 60 cc and, therefore, a person below the age of 16 years could not have been allowed to drive the said vehicle in the public place.
In that case, it was established that a 15 year old boy was driving the car at the time of accident without any valid driving license and the Insurer had sought to avoid its liability on the ground that the driver had no driving license at the time of accident pleading Section 4 as a provision which bars a minor belong the age of 18 years from driving a motor vehicle in a public place.
Procedural History
Claim Petition No.891 of 1999 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, which awarded compensation on 4.7.2008. The Insurance Company filed First Appeal No.939 of 2011 before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, which was heard and dismissed on 26.6.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Sections 3, 4, 5, 149(2)(a)(ii)
