Allahabad High Court
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THRU DY. MANAGERversusSMT. SITARUN NISHA AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The tribunal's finding that a valid licence holder was present as pillion rider defeats the alleged breach, so the insurer's claim to recover is denied.
Summary
The Oriental Insurance Co. appealed a tribunal award of Rs.20.40 million granted to the claimant for a fatal scooter accident. The appellant argued that the driver, Roshan Kesarwani, held only a learner's licence and was required to have a qualified licence holder as a pillion rider, which was allegedly absent, thus breaching the insurance policy. The tribunal, however, found that the driver’s father, Mahesh Prasad, a holder of a valid licence, was seated as the pillion rider at the time of the accident. The appellant contended that this breach should allow the insurer to recover the compensation from the vehicle owner. The High Court upheld the tribunal’s finding, concluding that no breach occurred, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the insurance policy was breached because the driver held a learner's licence without a qualified pillion rider.
- Whether the insurer is entitled to subrogate and recover the compensation from the vehicle owner on the basis of such breach.
Subjects
- motor vehicle insurance
- learner's licence
- pillion rider
- policy breach
- subrogation
- compensation
- tribunal award
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3 of 2010
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Dy. Manager
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Sitarun Nisha And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arun Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar, P.S. Kaushik, Prashant
Singh, R.B. Singh, Suresh Chandra
Verma
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. The case is called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of
the respondent to oppose this First Appeal From Order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim petition filed on
behalf of the claimant contained allegations against Roshan Kesarwani,
stating therein that while driving Scooter No. UP 63 A 2774, he hit the
deceased on 04.09.2005 at about 12:45 PM. The said person succumbed to
his injuries during treatment at Varanasi on 07.09.2005. It is submitted that
the claim petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal, which passed an
award of Rs.20,40,000/- in favour of the respondent-claimant along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is further submitted that Roshan
Kesarwani, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the
accident, was riding the scooter alone and no one was sitting as a pillion
rider. It is an admitted fact that, at the time of the accident, Roshan
Kesarwani was holding a learner's driving licence. A person holding a
learner's driving licence is not restrained from driving a vehicle; however, a
person holding a valid driving licence is required to accompany him as a
pillion rider.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Roshan
Kesarwani was driving the offending vehicle without any person holding a
valid driving licence sitting behind him as a pillion rider. Therefore, the
finding recorded by the learned Tribunal fastening the entire liability to pay
the compensation upon the Insurance Company is liable to be modified, and
the right of recovery ought to be granted in favour of the Insurance
FAFO No. 3 of 2010
2
Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the
vehicle.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award
passed by the learned Tribunal.
6. It is evident from the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the
father of Roshan Kesarwani was sitting as a pillion rider on the offending
vehicle at the time of the accident. The driving licence of Mahesh Prasad,
father of Roshan Kesarwani, was also produced before the learned Tribunal,
and the same was found to be valid and effective on the date of the accident.
7. In view of the aforesaid finding, the contention raised by the appellant
that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy
does not survive.
8. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is upheld. The
appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
September 9, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…