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

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under..........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.....

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.