Onus of proof – Recovery right -- 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

Validity of Driving License from Nagaland – Submission by insurance company that since driver belongs to Amritsar, he was not competent to submit an application before an authority in Nagaland for issuance of licence -- Insurance company did not call upon driver of the vehicle to appear in the witness box to explain the circumstances under which he obtained licence from an authority in Nagaland – Held, insurance company cannot be heard to say that he was either not resident of Nagaland or could not obtain a licence from an authority at Kohima.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2019

Validity of Driving license – Onus to prove that the driving licence was not valid on the day of accident or there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, is on the insurer.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

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

Onus of proof -- 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

Owner/RW3 made a categoric statement that he had seen the driving licence of driver before he was appointed – He has stated that 90 people were working for him and regular accounts were maintained by them and they had also taken the driving test of the driver before his engagement – Held, owner is not required to make specific inquiries regarding the genuineness of licence -- Owner was entitled to full indemnity. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation’s case 2013 AIR SCW 6505 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.09.2017

Adverse inference -- According to the owner the licence had been renewed but the endorsement is not signed by any officer -- There is no explanation why the licence was not taken back to the authorities for their signatures -- The official who had come from the Licensing Authority had stated that there was no record of renewal pertaining to this licence -- Driver-owner failed to step into the witness box and an adverse inference should be drawn against them.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2017

Onus of proof -- When the license was proved by driver, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about its admissibility or manner of proving -- 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

Fake driving licence – L.M.V. licence – Meaning of -- Owner pleaded that she had checked the driving licence of the driver and along with her husband took the test of his driving skills, which were found to be perfectly upto the mark -- However, there is nothing on record beyond the statement in this regard -- There is nothing on record to suggest that the owner had taken any steps to verify the genuineness of the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle -- From the testimony of official of the said authority and from the record on file, it is duly proved that the licence in question is a fake document – Licence in question is valid for motorcycle and light motor vehicle and as per the definition of the Light Motor Vehicle as mentioned in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the weight of the vehicle which comes under the ambit of light motor vehicle does not exceed 7500 kgs, but in this case, the weight of the offending vehicle is 8800 kgs. – No fault can be found with the approach of learned Tribunal while granting recovery rights to the insurance company.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Invalid driving license – Recovery right to Insurance company -- Owner has a duty to see that a vehicle is driven by a person having a valid driving licence – Driver’s license was proved to be invalid -- Owner did not raise any contention that he has used due diligence in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle -- Appellant/ Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from respondent Nos.3 (Driver) and 4 (owner) – Executing Court dismissed Execution application being not maintainable, however Insurance Company was given independent right to recover the amount from insured (Owner and Driver) as per award through regular civil suit – High Court affirmed the order – Held, it would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company which is directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree -- Impugned judgments cannot be sustained -- Appeals are allowed, the executing courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2009