Case: Kashiram Yadav &amp; Anr Vs. Oriental Fire &amp; Gen. Insurance Co. &amp; Ors

2. The facts which are now found are theseA constable while returning home after performing his duties was knocked down by a tractor owned by appellant 1 - Kashiram Yadav. Appellant 2 - Raghuraj was then driving the tractor. He had not driving licence. The widow of the constable and her children claimed compensation from the appellants and the insurer. The owner resisted the claim contending inter alia that he had already sold the vehicle to a third party and that vehicle was driven by the licensed driver Gaya Prasad at the time of the accident. Both these facts were not established. The Tribunal held that Raghuraj Singh was driving the tractor and the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving and not due to any fault on the part of the constable. Since Raghuraj Singh had no driving license, the Tribunal held that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation. Having reached that conclusion, the Tribunal determined the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. A sum of Rs. 96, 000 was awarded with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till realisation. This award of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court

Reasoning: 4. Section 96 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 imposes duty on the insurer to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks. Sub-section(2) thereof provides exception to the liability of the insurer. Sub-section 2(b) of Section 96 provides that the insurer is not liable to satisfy the judgments against the person insured if there has been breach of a specified condition of the policy. One of the conditions of the policy specified under clause (ii) is that the vehicle should not be driven by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining driving licence during the period of disqualification. It is not in dispute that the certificate of insurance concerned in this case contains this condition. If, therefore, there is a breach of this condition, the insurer will not be liable to indemnify the ownerThe vehicle concerned in that case was undisputedly entrusted to the driver who had a valid licence. In transit the driver stopped the vehicle and went to fetch some snacks from the opposite shop leaving the engine on. The ignition key was at the ignition lock and not in the cabin of the truck. The driver had asked the cleaner to take care of the truck. In fact the driver had left the truck in care of the cleaner. The cleaner meddled with the vehicle and caused the accident. The question arose whether the insured (owner) had committed a breach of the conditions incorporated in the certificate of insurance since the cleaner operated the vehicle on the fatal occasion without driving licence. This Court expressed the view that it is only when the insured himself entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence, he could be said to have committed breach of the condition of the policy. It must be established by the Insurance Company that the breach is on the part of the insured. Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach of the condition, the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured. It was also observed that when the insured has done everything within his power inasmuch as he has engaged the licensed driver and has placed the vehicle in his charge with the express or implied mandate to drive himself, it cannot be said that the insured is guilty of any breach6. We affirm and reiterate the statement of law laid down in the above case. We may also state that without the knowledge of the insured, if by drivers acts or omission others meddle with the vehicle and cause an accident, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured. The insurer in such a case cannot take the defence of a breach of the condition in the certificate of insurance7. But in the present case, the onus of the insurer has been discharged from the evidence of the insured himself. The insured took a positive defence stating that he was not the owner of the vehicle since he had already sold the same to a third party. This has not been proved. Secondly, he took a defence stating that the vehicle at the relevant time was driven by a licensed driver, Gaya Prasad (PW 2). This was proved to be false. There is no other material even to indicate that the vehicle was entrusted to the licensed driver on the date of the fatal accident. With these distinguishing features in the present case, we do not think that the ratio of the decision in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. case ((1987) 2 SCC 654 ) could be called to aid the appellants