National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Boya Rodda Lingamma and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase.....orderc.y. somayajulu, j.1. respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (the act) seeking compensation for the death of rodda narasimhaiah (the deceased) husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 alleging that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor belonging to the fourth respondent and insured with the appellant. after contest the tribunal passed an award for rs. 57,000/- in favour of the first respondent only against the fourth respondent and the appellant. contending that inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence, the tribunal was in error in making it also liable to pay compensation to the first respondent, the insurer preferred this appeal.2. the evidence of r.w1, examined on behalf of the appellant, is that since the charge sheet shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence there is a breach in the conditions of the policy and so the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the first respondent. he also relied on ex.b2 the motor vehicles inspector's report which.....

Judgment:

ORDER

C.Y. Somayajulu, J.

1. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation for the death of Rodda Narasimhaiah (the deceased) husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 alleging that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor belonging to the fourth respondent and insured with the appellant. After contest the Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 57,000/- in favour of the first respondent only against the fourth respondent and the appellant. Contending that inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence, the Tribunal was in error in making it also liable to pay compensation to the first respondent, the insurer preferred this appeal.

2. The evidence of R.W1, examined on behalf of the appellant, is that since the charge sheet shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence there is a breach in the conditions of the policy and so the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the first respondent. He also relied on Ex.B2 the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report which shows that the driver was not having driving licence. But Ex.A5 the judgment of the Criminal Court, shows that the driver was not found guilty of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Act as there is no evidence to show that the driver has no valid driving licence and was found guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC only.

3. If the appellant wanted to avoid its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence or a driving licence, it should have adduced evidence to show that the driver was not having driving licence or a valid driving licence, by summoning the records from the Road Transport Authority or otherwise, because the burden to establish that it is not liable to pay the compensation payable under the policy issued by it, for breach of conditions by the insured, is on the insurer. Merely basing on the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, an inference cannot be drawn that the driver was not having a driving licence when the judgment of the Criminal Court shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was not found guilty of the offence under Section 181 of the Act. In view of the ratio in National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh : AIR2004SC1531 if the appellant feels that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence or a driving licence it can proceed against the owner of the offending vehicle and can recover the amount paid by it to the first respondent, but it cannot, on the basis of evidence on record, contend that the award passed by the Tribunal against it is not sustainable.

4. Therefore, I find no merits in this appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. However, as stated earlier, the appellant, if it feels that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a driving licence or valid driving licence, can proceed against the fourth respondent for recovery of the amount paid by it to the first respondent.