- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Suresh Mohan Chopra v. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant sought compensation for injuries suffered in a road accident dated November 30, 1977. He was riding a scooter which met with an accident involving a motorcycle driven by respondent 1 and owned by respondent 2. The appellant asserted that the motorcycle was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited (respondent 3) at the relevant time.
The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 30,000 against the driver (respondent 1), owner (respondent 2), and the insurer (respondent 3). The insurer appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the award against the insurer on the view that it had not been established that respondent 1 possessed a driving licence at the time of the accident. The appellant then challenged the High Court’s judgment in the present appeal. Special leave was granted, and the matter was heard finally with consent of counsel.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the evidence in the case, the High Court committed an error of law in reversing the Tribunal’s finding that respondent 1 held a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, thereby absolving the insurer of liability.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court could not, in law on the facts of the case, reverse the Tribunal’s finding that respondent 1 had a driving licence at the relevant time.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the appellant’s submission and examined the evidentiary basis for the Tribunal’s finding regarding the driving licence. It noted that respondent 1 (the driver) was produced as a witness by the insurer itself and had categorically stated that he possessed a driving licence at the relevant time, issued by the Transport Authority at Rajpur Road in 1977.
Although the licence document was not produced, respondent 1 explained that the licence was valid for one year and had been destroyed after expiry. The Court emphasized that no evidence was led to show that this explanation was incorrect.
The Court further noted that the insurer bore the burden of proof on its plea that respondent 1 had no licence at the relevant time. Despite that burden, the insurer produced no supporting evidence: neither any record nor even a certificate from the Transport Authority indicating that no licence had been issued to respondent 1 in 1977.
In this evidentiary posture—particularly given that the driver was the insurer’s own witness—the Court held that the Tribunal had no real alternative but to accept the driver’s testimony. Consequently, the High Court “apparently committed an error of law” by reversing the Tribunal’s finding solely because the licence was not produced.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The appeal succeeded. The High Court’s judgment setting aside the award against the insurer (respondent 3) was set aside, and the Tribunal’s award was restored.
The direct consequence is that the insurer’s liability under the Tribunal’s award stands reinstated, and the appellant is entitled to costs. The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond restoring the award in this case, and it does not purport to set out any new precedent.
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Special leave granted. The appeal is taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant filed a claim for compensation on account of injuries received by him in an accident which took place on November 30, 1977. On that date, the appellant was going on his scooter which met with an accident with a motorcycle which was being driven by respondent 1 and was owned by respondent 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs 30,000 as compensation to the appellant against respondents 1 and 2, namely, the driver and owner of the motorcycle as also against the New India Assurance Company Limited-respondent 3 with whom according to the appellant the motorcycle stood insured at the time of the accident.
4. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed and the award as against the Insurance Company has been set aside. The High Court has taken the view that it had not been established that respondent 1 had a driving licence at the time of the accident and consequently the Insurance Company could not be held liable.
5. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the High Court in the present appeal on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal that respondent 1 had a driving licence at the relevant time could not in law, on the facts of the instant case, be reversed by the High Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the instant case, the driver-respondent 1 had been produced as its witness by the Insurance Company itself and he categorically stated that he had a driving licence at the relevent time issued by the Transport Authority at Rajpur Road in 1977. It is true that the driving licence itself was not produced by respondent 1 but his explanation in this regard was that the same being for one year only he had destroyed it after the expiry of that period. No evidence was produced to show that this explanation was wrong. Further, no other evidence was produced on behalf of the Insurance Company on which, admittedly, the burden of proof lay in support of the plea raised by it that respondent 1 had no driving licence at the relevant time on the basis of which it could be held that the said respondent did not have a driving licence. No record or even a certificate was produced from the Transport Authority indicating that in 1977 no licence was granted to respondent 1. In this state of evidence and particularly when the driver was a witness of the Insurance Company itself, there was no alternative for the Tribunal but to accept the statement of the driver that he had a licence at the relevant time and the High Court apparently committed an error of law in reversing the finding of the Tribunal simply because the driving licence was not produced.
7. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dismissing the claim of the appellant as against the Insurance Company-respondent 3 is set aside and the award of the Tribunal is restored. The appellant shall be entitled to his costs.
Alert