Case: Lakhmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance

was not responsible for the accident. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident.”(emphasis laid by this Court) 16. Further, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors (2004) 3 SCC 297 ). a three judge bench of this Court has held as under:- ”49. Such a breach on the part of the insured must be established by the insurer to show that not only the insured used or caused or permitted to be used the vehicle in breach of the Act but also that the damage he suffered flowed from the breach.52. In Narvinva’s case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court observed: “The insurance company complains of breach of a term of contract which would permit it to disown its liability under the contract of insurance. If a breach of a term of contract permits a party to the contract complaints of breach to prove that the breach has been committed by the other party to the contract. The test in such a situation would be who would fail if no evidence is led.69. The proposition of law is no longer resintegra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. The insurance company is, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evident. In the event the insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability.”(emphasis laid by this Court) 17. The judgment in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) has been followed subsequently in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Variyal ((2007) 5 SCC 428 ), wherein this Court held as under:- “We shall now examine the decision in Swaran Singh on which practically the whole of the arguments on behalf of the claimants were rested. On examining the facts, it is found that, that was a case which related to a claim by a third party. In claims by a third party, there cannot be much doubt that once the liability of the owner is found, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner, subject of course, to any defence that may be available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act. In case where the liability is satisfied by the insurance company in the first instance, it may have recourse to the owner in respect of a claim available in that behalf, it may have recourse to the owner in respect of a claim available that behalf. Swaran Singh was a case where the insurance company raised a defence that the owner had permitted the vehicle to be driven by a driver who really had no licence and the driving licence produced by him was a fake one. There Lordships discussed the position and held ultimately that a defence under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act was available to an insurer when a claim is filed either under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the Act. The breach of a policy condition has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence of or production of fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party. The insurance company to avoid liability, must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceeding concerned but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company. Whether such a burden had been discharged, would depend upon the facts breach on the part of the insured concerning a policy condition, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach of condition is so fundamental as to be found to have contributed to the cause of the accident.”(emphasis laid by this Court) 18. It becomes very clear from a perusal of the above mentioned case law of this Court that the insurance company, in order to avoid liability must not only establish the defence claimed in the proceeding concerned, but also establish breach on the part of the owner/insured of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company. In the instant case, the respondent-Company has not produced any evidence on record to prove that the accident occurred on account of the overloading of passengers in the goods carrying vehicle. Further, as has been held in the case of B.V. Nagaraju (supra) that for the insurer to avoid his liability, the breach of the policy must be so fundamental in nature that it brings the contract to an end. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the accident was infact caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, against whom a criminal case vide FIR no. 66 of 2010 was registered for the offences referred to supra under the provisions of the IPC. These facts have not been taken into consideration by either the State Commission or National Commission while exercising their jurisdiction and setting aside the order of the District Forum. Therefore, the judgment and order of the National Commission dated 26.04.2013 passed in the Revision Petition No. 2032 of 2012 is liable to be set aside, as the said findings recorded in the judgment are erroneous in law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]14. It is an admitted fact that the accident of the vehicle of the appellant was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.An FIR No. 66 of 2010 dated 11.02.2010 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338,304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Codeagainst the driver of the said vehicle for the offences referred to supra. The vehicle of the appellant was badly damaged in the accident and it is an undisputed fact that the report of Surveyor assessed the loss atbut the actual amount incurred by the appellant on the repair of his vehicle was Rs.The said claim was arbitrarily rejected by theon the ground that the damage caused to the vehicle did not fall within the scope and purview of the insurance policy, as there was a contravention of terms and conditions of the policy of the vehicle.15. The National Commission upheld the order of dismissal of the complaint of the appellant passed by the State Commission. The National Commission however, did not consider the judgment of this Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Divisional Officer, Hassan ((1996) 4 SCC 647 ). In that case, the insurance company had taken the defence that the vehicle in question was carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity in terms of the policy at the time of the accident. The said plea of the insurance company was rejected. This Court held that the mere factum of carrying more passengers than the permitted seating capacity in the goods carrying vehicle by the insured does not amount to a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy so as to allow the insurer to eschew its liability towards the damage caused to the vehicle.This Court in the said case has held asis plain from the terms of the Insurance Policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry six workmen, excluding the driver. If those six workmen when travelling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the pose, keeping apart the load it was carrying. In the present case the driver of the vehicle was not responsible for the accident. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of thelaid by thisIt becomes very clear from a perusal of the above mentioned case law of this Court that the insurance company, in order to avoid liability must not only establish the defence claimed in the proceeding concerned, but also establish breach on the part of the owner/insured of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company. In the instant case, thehas not produced any evidence on record to prove that the accident occurred on account of the overloading of passengers in the goods carrying vehicle. Further, as has been held in the case of B.V. Nagaraju (supra) that for the insurer to avoid his liability, the breach of the policy must be so fundamental in nature that it brings the contract to an end. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the accident was infact caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, against whom a criminal case vide FIR no. 66 of 2010 was registered for the offences referred to supra under the provisions of the IPC. These facts have not been taken into consideration by either the State Commission or National Commission while exercising their jurisdiction and setting aside the order of the District Forum. Therefore, the judgment and order of the National Commission dated 26.04.2013 passed in the Revision Petition No. 2032 of 2012 is liable to be set aside, as the said findings recorded in the judgment are erroneous in law.