Topics » Civil Law Discourse » Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988

Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #237533
      advtanmoy
      Keymaster

      Advocatetanmoy-Law-Library

      Interpretation of Section 149 of the Act of 198

      Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co vs Geeta Devi And Ors (SC-  30/10/ 2023)

      Thereafter, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 149 of the Act of 1988. The cases before the Bench involved, amongst others, instances where the driving licence produced by the driver or owner of the vehicle was a fake one. The Bench noted that Section 149(2)(a) opened with the words: ‘that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy’, which would imply that the insurer’s defence of the action would depend upon the terms of the policy. It was observed that an insurance company which wished to avoid its liability is not only required to show that the conditions laid down in Section 149 (2)(a) or (b) are satisfied but is further required to establish that there has been a breach on the part of the insured.

      Such a breach on the part of the insured must be established by the insurer to show that the insured used or caused or permitted to be used the insured vehicle in breach of the provisions. The Bench went on to state that where the insurer, relying upon the violation of law by the assured, takes exception to pay the assured or a third party, it must prove a willful violation of the law by the assured. Noting that the proposition of law is no longer res integra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same, the Bench observed that an insurance company would be required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence and in the event an insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of the conditions of the policy on the part of the insured, such an insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability.

      12. Further, in the context of cases where the driver’s licence was found to be fake, the Bench observed that the question would be whether the insurer could prove that the owner was guilty of willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. It was pointed out that the defence to the effect that the licence held by the person driving the vehicle was a fake one would be available to the insurance company but whether, despite the same, the plea of default on the part of the owner has been established or not would be a question which would have to be determined in each case.

      The earlier decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lehru and others (2003) 3 SCC 338 was considered and the Bench observed that the ratio therein must not be read to mean that an owner of a vehicle can, under no circumstances, have any duty to make an inquiry with regard to the genuineness of the driving licence and the same would again be a question which would arise for consideration in each individual case.

      The argument that the decision in Lehru (supra) meant that, for all intent and purport, the right of the insurer to raise a defence that the licence was fake was taken away was, however, rejected as not being correct and it was held that such a defence can certainly be raised, but it will be for the insurer to prove that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence held by the driver. The findings summed up by the Bench, to the extent presently relevant, are as under:

      (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.

      (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.

      (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

      (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act.

      (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.’

       

    • #237534
      advtanmoy
      Keymaster

      Whether insurance company could be absolved of liability on ground that insured vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have a valid driving licence

      In Ram Chandra Singh vs. Rajaram and others (2018) 8 SCC 799, the issue before this Court was whether an insurance company could be absolved of liability on the ground that the insured vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. This Court found that no attempt was made to ascertain whether the owner was aware of the fake driving licence possessed by the driver and held that it is only if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake but still permitted such driver to drive the vehicle that the insurer would stand absolved. It was unequivocally held that the mere fact that the driving licence was fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer.

      Applying the aforestated edicts to the case on hand, it may be noted that the petitioner-insurance company did not even raise the plea that the owner of the vehicle allowed Ujay Pal to drive the vehicle knowing that his licence was fake. Its stand was that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the victim himself. Further, the insurance policy did not require the vehicle owner to undertake verification of the driving licence of  the driver of the vehicle by getting the same confirmed with the RTO. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner-insurance company that it has the right to recover the compensation from the owners of the vehicle, owing to a willful breach of the condition of the insurance policy, viz., to ensure that the vehicle was driven by a licenced driver, is without pleading and proof.

      As already pointed out supra, once a seemingly valid driving licence is produced by a person employed to drive a vehicle, unless such licence is demonstrably fake on the face of it, warranting any sensible employer to make inquiries as to its genuineness, or when the period of the licence has already expired, or there is some other reason to entertain a genuine doubt as to its validity, the burden is upon the insurance company to prove that there was a failure on the part of the vehicle owner in carrying out due diligence apropos such driving licence before employing that person to drive the vehicle.

       

    • #237535
      advtanmoy
      Keymaster

      Statement given to police during investigation U/S 161 cannot be read as “evidence”

      Statement given to police during investigation under Section 161 cannot be read as an “evidence”. It has a limited applicability in a Court of Law as prescribed under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

      19. No doubt statement given before police during investigation under Section 161 are “previous statements” under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to “contradict” such a witness. Even if the defence is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness. It is here that we feel that the learned judges of the High Court have gone wrong.

      Any lengthy cross-examination of a witness may invariably result in contradictions. But these contradictions are not always sufficient to discredit a witness.

      In Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, this Court had held as under:

      “24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.” In the same case, how far a contradiction in the two statements can be used to discredit a witness has also been discussed.

      “25. It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from the previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. The material portion of the section is extracted below:

      “155. Impeaching credit of witness.—The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the court, by the party who calls him— (1)-(2)*** (3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;”

      26. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Only such of an inconsistent statement which is liable to be “contradicted” would affect the credit of the witness. Section 145 of the Evidence Act also enables the cross-examiner to use any former statement of the witness, but it cautions that if it is intended to “contradict” the witness the cross-examiner is enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed therein. Section 162 of the Code also permits the cross-examiner to use the previous statement of the witness (recorded under Section 161 of the Code) for the only limited purpose i.e. to “contradict” the witness.”

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.