- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhuwan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant owned Tractor No. UA 06 0363. On 5-1-2001 the tractor struck 19-year-old Paras Gubbar, who was riding a bicycle. The victim sustained a head injury and died on the spot. His legal heirs filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 86 of 2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nainital, which awarded them Rs 1,32,000 in damages.
During the proceedings the appellant contended that the tractor was being driven by one Diwan Singh, while the appellant was merely a passenger. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited argued that the driver (whomever it was) did not possess a valid and effective licence and therefore the insurer had no liability. The Tribunal held the appellant himself was driving without a valid licence, exonerated the insurer, and directed the appellant to pay the award. The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the appellant’s Appeal from Order No. 589 of 2006 on 3-4-2008. The present appeal challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal and the High Court erred by not framing a specific issue on the identity of the driver at the time of the accident.
- Whether the appellant possessed a “valid and effective” or “duly” driving licence on 5-1-2001, given that his learner’s licence had expired on 22-12-2000 and a regular licence was applied for only on 22-1-2001.
- Whether, under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the appellant when the driver was not duly licensed.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Tribunal and High Court committed legal error by failing to frame an issue on whether the appellant was the driver.
- The earlier learner’s licence should be treated as constituting an “effective” licence, rendering the insurer liable.
- Section 149 imposes a statutory duty on the insurer to satisfy the award unless it proves a breach of policy conditions.
- The insurer failed to discharge its burden under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297.
Insurance Company's Arguments
- The appellant suffered no prejudice from the absence of a separate issue because findings already establish he was the driver.
- The onus lay on the appellant to prove he was not the driver and that he possessed a valid licence, matters within his special knowledge.
- Given the finding that the appellant drove without a valid licence, the insurer bears no liability under the policy.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 | Distinction between “effective” and “duly” licensed; burden on insurer to prove breach, subject to facts within driver’s special knowledge. | Used to emphasise that although the insurer generally bears the burden, the appellant had special knowledge about his licence status and failed to discharge that burden. |
| Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 165 | Licence renewal: if renewal is sought after 30 days of expiry, validity runs only from the date of renewal, leaving a gap when the driver is unlicensed. | Cited to show that an expired licence (including a learner’s licence) is not “valid and effective” on the accident date; therefore the insurer is not liable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court affirmed concurrent findings that the appellant himself was driving the tractor. Because that fact was within the appellant’s exclusive knowledge, Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on him to disprove it; he failed to call the alleged driver, Diwan Singh.
The Court examined the insurance policy clause permitting any person, including the insured, to drive provided he holds an “effective” licence or a valid learner’s licence complying with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The appellant’s learner’s licence had expired on 22-12-2000; no statutory provision provides for automatic renewal of a learner’s licence. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the principles in Ram Babu Tiwari, an expired learner’s licence renders the driver “not duly licensed.”
Although generally the insurer must prove breach of policy, the Court invoked Swaran Singh to note that the driver must first establish possession of a valid licence. Because the appellant did not file an application for a regular licence until 22-1-2001—after the accident—he was unlicensed on 5-1-2001. Consequently, the policy condition was breached, and the insurer bore no liability.
The Court also held that non-framing of a specific issue on driver identity caused no prejudice; the appellant was aware of the pleadings and led evidence accordingly. Therefore, no procedural error vitiated the findings.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED; no order as to costs.
The decision confirms that an expired learner’s licence does not satisfy the “duly licensed” requirement, absolving insurers of liability under Section 149 when the driver lacks a valid licence at the time of accident. The ruling applies existing precedent and does not establish a new principle but reinforces the driver’s burden to prove licence validity.
S.B Sinha, J.— Leave granted. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 3-4-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Appeal from Order No. 589 of 2006.
2. The appellant is the owner of a tractor bearing No. UA 06 0363. It hit Paras Gubbar (the deceased), son of Shri Harish 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 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nainital which was registered as MACP No. 86 of 2001. An award of Rs 1,32,000 was passed in favour of the said applicant claimants.
3. In the said proceedings, the appellant inter alia raised a plea that the tractor was being driven by one Diwan Singh and the appellant being the owner thereof was sitting by his side whereafter he ran away. The villagers stopped the vehicle and a first information report was lodged against him alleging that he had been driving the same rashly and negligently. It was, furthermore, stated that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. under Policy Cover No. 58226 for the period 5-11-2000 and 4-11-2001.
4. 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 owner or the driver for the damages payable by the owner of the vehicle to the respondent claimants.
5. The learned Tribunal, inter alia, framed the following issues:
“(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 Respondent 1 and was insured with Respondent 2 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?
(3) Whether the petition is maintainable or suffers from non-joinder of necessary party as stated by Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 in their replies?
(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief?”
An award of Rs 1,32,000 was passed in favour of the claimants. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.
6. Ms Rachna Joshi Issar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit:
(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.
(ii) The 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 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 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 the contract of insurance as has been held by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 the High Court must be held to have committed a serious error of law in passing the impugned judgment.
7. The respondent Insurance Company, on the other hand, would contend:
(i) The 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.
(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 upon the Insurance Company.
(iii) The appellant having raised a specific plea as regards his non-involvement in the accident, the burden of proof was on him.
8. The appellant indisputably is the owner of the vehicle in question. He was admittedly in the vehicle when it met with the 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.
9. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was insured. The relevant portion of the contract of insurance reads as under:
Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive (A) Any person including the insured. (B) Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. (C) Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Limitations as to use Agricultural use.
10. Concededly the appellant had been holding a learner's licence. It expired on 22-12-2000. The accident took place on 5-1-2001. He applied for grant of a regular licence only on 22-1-2001, whereafter only the licence was granted to him.
11. Rule 14 of the Central Motor Vehicles 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 licence to drive the vehicle of the type to which the application relates. Different provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act as also the Rules framed thereunder exist for filing applications for grant of learner's licence and a licence. Whereas an application for grant 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.
12. The word “effective” licence is defined in Section 3 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 149, however, uses the word duly licensed. In Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 a three-Judge Bench of this Court has drawn a distinction between the said two terms.
13. The Act provides for grant of a learner's licence. It indisputably is a licence within the meaning of the 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 and 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. The converse however is not true.
14. 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 the 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.
15. In Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (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 of 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, 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 valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured.”
16. The appellant herein raised a specific plea that he was not driving the vehicle and one Diwan Singh was driving the same. The said fact was within his special knowledge. The burden of proof, therefore, to prove the same was on him. He did not examine Diwan Singh. The claimants in their claim petition described the appellant as the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle.
17. The Insurance Company, as noticed hereinbefore, has also categorically raised the plea that the appellant was not holding a valid and effective licence.
18. The burden of proof ordinarily would be on the Insurance 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, he was also charge-sheeted.
19. A finding of fact has been arrived at that the appellant had been driving the vehicle. He in view of the pleadings raised by the Insurance Company cannot be said to have been prejudiced by non-framing of the specific issue as to whether he was driving the vehicle or not. He was aware of the pleadings of the parties. He adduced evidence in that behalf.
20. The Tribunal as also the High Court arrived at a finding of fact that it was the appellant who had been driving the vehicle. If that be so, the question raised before us must be determined having regard to the proved facts, namely, as on the date of accident he was not holding any valid and effective licence.
21. In terms of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the awarded amount to the claimants provided the accident is covered by the terms of the policy, although the burden in respect thereof would be on the Insurance Company.
22. It is now well settled in view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act that facts admitted need not to be proved.
23. 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 thereof would therefore are prerequisite for holding a valid and effective licence. As on 5-1-2001 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. The Insurance Company, therefore, in our opinion was not bound to reimburse him in terms of the contract of insurance.
24. 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.
Alert