IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1982 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.08.2009 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Petitioner versus Bhagwanti and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is at the instance of the Insurance Company against the order rejecting the contentions raised by the Insurance Company denying the fact that the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence and that the vehicle that was involved in the accident, had valid fitness certificate. The petition had been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and on the basis of pleadings the Tribunal had framed issue No.1 that dealt with whether there had been any rash and negligent driving of the driver and issue No.2 related to the quantum of compensation payable. The Tribunal rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the Insurance Company relating to the licence particulars of the driver by reasoning that the relief under Section 163-A was on the basis of no fault liability and the Insurance Company would be debarred from taking such defences. Civil Revision No.1982 of 2001 - 2 - 2. The Tribunal was in complete error in rejecting the contentions of the Insurance Company and making no reference to the relevant Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that details the permissible defences which are available to an Insurance Company, as under : “(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub- section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely: a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:- (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. 3. The fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence is an admissible defence under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. Civil Revision No.1982 of 2001 - 3 - The issue that the Tribunal had framed namely whether there was a rashness and negligent driving is alone the issue which is irrelevant even against the Insurance Company for while the owner of the vehicle could deny the rashness and negligence, the Insurance Company itself shall not be permitted to join issues either on the questions of negligence or on the question of compensation. These grounds shall be permitted to the Insurance Company if only permission had been taken under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. At any rate, the issue of negligence is irrelevant to a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to frame an issue as to whether the driver of the vehicle had an effective valid driving licence as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is directed to be taken up, if it had not already been disposed of, on the issue framed presently in the civil revision. 5. The civil revision is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.08.2009 sanjeev