Rash and negligent driving by other vehicle – If the owner-cum-driver of the car were setting up a defence plea that the accident was a result of not his but the other vehicle driver’s carelessness or rashness, then the onus was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to how the accident had taken place -- Fact that he chose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he was himself at fault -- High Court, therefore, ought not to have shifted the burden of proof.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Breach of policy – Invalid driving license – Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Invalid driving license – Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Proof of Head on collision/ Contributory negligence – FIR was registered on the very next day at the instance of PW-2 -- It was specifically recorded that the offending vehicle was coming on wrong side and hit the car from front -- Evidence produced by the claimants was not rebutted by the insurer -- In cases under the Act, onus of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases -- Claimants have to establish their case merely on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities – Held, claimants have been able to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and the fact that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

Driving license – Liability of insurance company -- Owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle was being driven by a person having valid driving licence -- Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability -- Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle -- To subserve the ends of justice, the insurer shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Driving license – Onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Proof of Driving license – Once the license was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the license at a later stage -- Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence -- Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident.

(SC) Decided on: 13.07.2016

Accident with stationary vehicle – In the stationary vehicle parked in any public place a duly licensed driver should be in the driver seat, unless the mechanism of the vehicle has been stopped and brakes have been applied – Onus is always upon the Insurance Company to establish the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy – So, it was for the Insurance Company to establish that the mechanism of the vehicle was operating though it was stationary when the accident took place, but no such evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company -- Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Insured as witness -- Onus is on Insurance company to call insured -- If the claimants were trying to place on record the evidence to say that the accident was the result of the negligent driving of the driver, the insurer to place best possible evidence -- Insured was not a stranger to the insurer -- Motor Vehicles Act enables the insurer to secure details of the accident from the insured u/s 133 and it would be perfectly competent for the insurer to secure the presence of the insured to give evidence that could have suited the insurer's purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Breach of policy – Renewal of Fake license -- If the employer has taken the reasonable precautions, then, in no way, it can be held that owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy -- Owner is not supposed to get the verification from DTO/RTO office regarding the original driving licence – Burdon is on insurer to establish breach of policy – Held, reasonable care was taken by employer, there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015