Supreme Court of India
BHUWAN SINGHversusM/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 320
- Decided
- 5 March 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The appellant did not hold a valid or effective licence at the time of the accident, and therefore the insurer was not bound to reimburse the claim.
Summary
The owner of a tractor, who was also driving it, caused a fatal accident on 5 January 2001. The claimants obtained a motor accident claim award of Rs.1.32 lakh. The insurer refused to reimburse, arguing that the driver did not hold a valid licence because his learner's licence had expired on 22 December 2000 and he had not yet obtained a regular licence. The Supreme Court examined whether a learner's licence that had expired could be treated as a valid licence and who bore the burden of proof. It held that the expired learner's licence did not constitute a valid or effective licence, that the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act rested on the appellant, and that he failed to discharge it. Consequently, the insurer was not liable to pay the award, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident
- Whether the burden of proof regarding the licence fell on the insurer or the appellant
- Whether the insurer was liable to reimburse the claim under the contract of insurance and Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act
Legislation cited
- Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989s. Rule 14, s. Rule 4
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 106, s. 58
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 149, s. 3
Subjects
Motor Vehicles Actlearner's licencevalid licenceinsurance liabilityburden of proofcontract of insurancemotor accident claim
Judgment
[2009) 4 S.C.R. 195
BHUWAN SINGH A
v
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
Civil Appeal No. 1537 of 2009
MARCH 5, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 149 - Central Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1989 - r. 4 - Tractor met with accident resulting in death
\
of a person -Appellant owned the tractor and was also driving
the same at the relevant time- Claim petition -Award passed c
in favour of claimants - Appellant held a learner's licence
which had expired and was not valid on the date of accident -
On that ground, insurance company denied its liability to
reimburse the appellant in respect of the awarded amount -
Held: Appellant was not holding a valid and effective licence D
at the time of the accident- Insurance company therefore was
not bound to reimburse him in terms of the Contract of
Insurance - Contract - Contract of insurance.
A tractor met with an accident with a cycle resulting
E
in death of the person riding the cycle. Appellant owned
the tractor and was also driving the same at the relevant
time. The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition
before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. An award of
Rs.1.32 lakhs was passed in favour of the claimants.
F
Placing reliance on the fact that appellant held a
learner's licence which had expired and was not valid on
the date of accident, the insurance company denied its
liability to reimburse the appellant in respect of the
awarded amount
.. The question which arose for consideration in the
G
present appeal was whether the appellant was not holding
a valid and effective licence at the time of the accident,
195 H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 4 S.C.R.
A and consequently the insurance company was
exonerated from its liability to reimburse the appellant in
respect of the awarded amount.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B HELD:1.1 Only because the appellant held a learner's
licence which had expired and was not valid on the date
of accident, he cannot be said to be duly licensed. It is
true that despite expiry of a regular licence, it may be
renewed, but no provision has been brought to notice of
c this Court providing for automatic renewal of learner's
licence. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant
of a learner's licence. It indisputably is a licence within
the meaning of provisions thereof. A person holding a
learner's licence is also entitled to drive a vehicle but it is
granted for a specific period. The terms & Conditions for
0
grant of a learner's licence are different from those of a
regular licence. Holding of a learner's licence is imperative
for filing an application for grant of licence as provided
for in Rule 4 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
Converse however is not true. [Para 14] [201-D-F]
E
1.2. The insurance company categorically raised the
plea that the appellant was not holding a valid and
effective licence. The burden of proof ordinarily would be
on insurance company to establish that there has been a
F breach of conditions of the contract of insurance. In this
case, however, the burden in terms of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act was on the appellant. He failed to discharge
the said burden. [Para 16] [202-E-F]
1.3. The driver was to show that he held licence in
G respect of the vehicle for which he had filed an application.
Filing of an application and grant thereof were pre- '
requisites for holding a valid and effective licence. As on
5-01-2001 i.e. the date of the accident, the appellant was
not duly licensed as his learner's licence expired on 22-
H 12-2000. He filed an application for grant of licence much
BHUWAN SINGH V. M/S ORIENTAL 197
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
later. The insurance company was therefore not bound A
to reimburse him in terms of the Contract of Insurance.
[Para 21-22] [203-D-F]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. •
(2004) 3 SCC 297 and Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 165 - referred to. B
Case Law Reference
(2004) 3 sec 291 referred to Para 7
(2008) a sec 1ss referred to Para 14 c
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1537
of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 03.04.2008 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Appeal from
0
Order No. 589 of 2006.
Rachana Joshi lssar, Shailendra Kumar, Nidhi Tewari, for
the Appellants.
Majusha Wadhwa, Samina Sheikh, for the Respondent.
E
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order F
dated 3-04-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Appeal From Order No. 589
of 2006.
3. Appellant is the owner of a tractor bearing No. UA06/
0363. It hit Paras Gubbar (deceased), son of Shri Harish G
Chandra Gubbar while he was riding on a cycle. He was aged
about 19 years. He sustained an injury on his head and died on
the spot.
His legal heirs and representatives filed a claim petition H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R
A before Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. Nainital which was
registered as M.A.C.P. No.86 of 2001. An award of Rs.1,32,000/
- was passed in favour of the said applicants/claimants. In the
said proceedings, appellant inter alia raised a plea that the
tractor was being driven by one Diwan Singh and the appellant
s being the owner thereof was sitting by his side whereafter he
ran away. Villagers stopped the vehicle and a first information
report was lodged against him alleging that he had been driving
the same rashly and negligently.
4. It was, furthermore, stated that the vehicle was insured
C with Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Policy Cover
No. 58226 for the period 5-11-2000 and 4-11-2001.
The insurance company, on the other hand, raised a
contention that as the driver of the said tractor was not holding
a valid and effective licence, it had no liability to reimburse the
0
owner or the driver for the damages payable by the owner of
the vehicle to the claimants-respondents.
5. The learned Tribunal, inter alia, framed the following
issues:
E "(1) Whether the rash and negligent driving by the driver
of tractor no. UA 06/0363 on 5.1.2001 resulted in the
accident causing death of Paras Gubbar and whether on
the said date the tractor was owned by the respondent no.
1 and was insured with by the respondent no. 2 the
F insurance company?
(2) Whether the petitioner suffered damage on account of
the said accident and deserved to be compensated, if
yes, to what extent and from which party?
G (3) Whether the petition is maintainable or suffers from
non joinder of necessary party has stated by the respondent
No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in their replies?
(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief?"
H 6. An award of Rs. 1,32.000/- was passed in favour of the
·-
BHUWAN SINGH V. MIS ORIENTAL 199
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
...
claimants. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant A
has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned
Judgment.
7. Ms. Rachna Joshi lssar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant would submit :
B
(i) No issue having been framed despite a specific plea
having been raised by the appellant that he had not
been driving the tractor, the tribunal and consequently
the High Court committed a serious error in passing
the impugned judgment.
c
(ii) Appellant at the relevant time must be held to have
been holding an effective licence as he had been
granted a learner's licence earlier, the finding of the
Tribunal and consequently the High Court exonerating
the insurance company from its liability to reimburse 0
the owner in respect of the awarded amount suffers
from serious legal infirmity.
(iii) Having regard to the statutory duties imposed upon
the insurance company to reimburse the owner of
the vehicle or driver as provided for in Section 149 E
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the impugned
judgment must be held to be unsustainable.
... (iv) The insurance company having not proved breaches
of conditions of contract of insurance as has been
held by this Court in tyational Insurance Co. Ltd. v: F
Swaran Singh and Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 297], the
High Court must be held to have committed a serious
error of law in passing the impugned judgment.
8. Respondent-Insurance Company, on the other hand,
would contend : G
(i) Appellant cannot be said to have been prejudiced in
any manner by non-framing of a specific issue as to
whether the tractor was being driven by the appellant
or Diwan Singh.
H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 4 S. C.R.
A (ii) A finding of fact having been arrived at. that the owner
of the vehicle himself was driving the vehicle; the
onus of proof that he was not its driver was upon the
appellant and not the insurance company.
(iii) Appellant having raised a specific plea as regards
B his noninvolvement in the accident, the burden of
proof was on him.
9. Appellant indisputably is the owner of the vehicle in
question. He was admittedly in the vehicle when it met with the
c accident. A First Information Report was lodged against him.
He was proceeded against in a criminal trial having been
charge-sheeted by the Investigating Agency.
10. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was insured.
The relevant portion of the Contract of Insurance reads as under :
D
Persons of classes of (A) Any person including
persons entitled to insured. (B) PROVIDED
drive that a person driving hold
E an effective driving Licence
at the time of the accident
and is not disqualified from
holding or obtaining such a
licence. (C) PROVIDED
F also that the person holding
an effective learner's
licence may also drive the
vehicle and such a person
satisfies the requirement of
G the rule 3 of the Central
Motor Vehicle Rule 1988.
Limitations as to use Agri. Use.
11. Concededly the appellant had been holding a learner's
H licence. It expired on 22-12-2000. The accident took place on
BHUWAN SINGH V. MIS ORIENTAL 201
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
5-01-2001. He applied for grant of a regular licence only on 22- A
•. 01-2001, whereafter only the licence was granted to him.
Rule 14 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 provides
for the manner in which an application for driving licence is to
be filed. Such an application is to be filed in form 4 and is
required to be inter alia accompanied by an effective learner's B
licence to drive the vehicle of the type to which the application
relates.
- '
12. Different provisions in the Motor Vehicle Act as also
rules framed thereunder exist for filing applications for grant of
learner's licence and a licence. Whereas an application for grant
c
of a learner's licence is filed in form 3 prescribed by the rules;
an application for grant of licence is filed in form 4.
13. The word effective licence is defined in Section 3 of
the Act. Subsection 2 of Section 149, however, uses the word D
duly licensed. In Swaran Singh (supra), a three Judge Bench of
this Court has drawn a distinction between the said two terms.
14. The Act provides for grant of a learner's licence. It
indisputably is a licence within the meaning of provisions thereof.
A person holding a learner's licence is also entitled to drive a E
vehicle but it is granted for a specific period. The terms &
Conditions for grant of a learner's licence are different from those
of a regular licence. Holding of a learner's licence is imperative
for filing an application for grant of licence as provided for in
Rule 4 of the Rules. Converse however is not true. Only because F
the appellant held a learner's licence which had expired and
was not valid on the date of accident, he cannot be said to be
duly licensed. It is true that despite expiry of a regular licence, it
may be renewed, but no provision has been brought to our notice
providing for automatic renewal of learner's licence. G
In Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 165], this Court held:
"18. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event
an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.
A 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would
be renewed automatically which means that even if an
accident had taken place within the aforementioned period,
the driver may be held to be possessing a valid licence.
The proviso appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 15,
B however, clearly states that the driving licence shall be
renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the
event the application for renewal of a licence is made
more than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore,
evident that as, on renewal of the licence on such terms,
the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a
c valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify
the insured."
15. Appellant herein raised a specific plea that he was not
driving the vehicle and one Diwan Singh was driving the same.
D The said fact was within his special knowledge. Burden cf proof,
therefore, to prove the same was on him. He did not examine
Diwan Singh.
16. The claimants in their claim petition described the
appellant as owner as well as driver of the vehicle.
E
The. insurance company, as noticed hereinbefore, has also
categorically raised the plea that the appellant was not holding
a valid and effective licence.
The burden of proof ordinarily would be on insurance
F company to establish that there has been a breach of conditions
of the contract of insurance. In this case, however, the burden in
terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act was on the appellant.
He failed to discharge the said burden. As indicated
hereinbefore, not only a criminal case was pending against him,
G he was also charge-sheeted.
17. A finding of fact has been arrived at that he had been
driving the vehicle. He in view of the pleadings raised by the
insurance company cannot be said to have been prejudiced by
H non-framing of specific issue as to whether he was driving the
BHUWAN SINGH V. M/S ORIENTAL 203
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
vehicle or not. He was aware of the pleadings of the parties. He A
-· adduced evidence in that behalf. The tribunal as also the High
Court arrived at a finding of fact that it was the appellant who
had been driving the vehicle.
18. If that be so, the question raised before us must be
determined having regard to the proved facts namely as on the 8
date of accident he was not holding any valid and effective
licence.
19. In terms of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance
company would be liable to pay the awarded amount to the c
claimants provided the accident is covered by the terms of the
policy, although the burden in respect thereof would be in the
insurance company.
20. It is now well-settled in view of Section 58 of the Indian
Evidence Act that facts admitted need not to be proved. D
21. The question as to whether the appellant was holding
a valid licence or not was within his knowledge. The driver was
to show that he held licence in respect of the vehicle for which
he had filed an application.Filing of an application and grant E
thereof would therefore are pre-requisite for holding a valid and
effective licence.
22. As on 5-01-2001 the appellant was not duly licensed
._. as his learner's licence expired on 22-12-2000. He filed an
application for grant of licence much later. Insurance company, F
therefore, in our opinion was not bound to reimburse him in terms
of the Contract of Insurance.
23. There is, thus, no merit in the case. The appeal is
dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case,
there shall be no order as to costs. G
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Vehicles Act"Sign in to search