Supreme Court: Insurance Company should invoke principle of pay and recover if driver of vehicle carrying hazardous goods was not having proper license to drive that vehicle

 In this case, the High Court had set aside the

award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

stating that respondent No. 2, at the relevant time,

was not having a proper license to drive the vehicle

carrying hazardous goods and, in such circumstances,

the insurance company cannot be fastened with the

liability of payment of the award amount.

The only issue for consideration is as to

whether the High Court was right in refusing to adopt

the usual procedure of pay and recover in cases of

motor accident claims.

Considering the facts of the case, we are of the

view that the High Court should have asked the

respondent No.1 - Insurance Company to pay the

appellants – claimants, with liberty to recover it

from respondent No. 2 – owner of the vehicle which

caused the accident in the execution proceedings.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL [C] NO. /2025

[@ SLP [C] NO.3033/2024]

MANTU MAHATO & ORS. Vs THE NATIONAL INSURANCE  COMPANY LTD. & ANR. 

Dated: FEBRUARY 03, 2025.

Print Page

Madras HC: Under which circumstances, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation?

 As far as the present case is concerned, it is the categorical evidence of R.W.2 that the driver of the offending lorry was not possessing the licence to drive the transport vehicle or the hazardous vehicle and even the Ex.R.2-xerox copy of badge register refers to No. 11134/81307 standing in the name T.G.Sundarajan, S/o.Gopal Mesthray, No. 4, 7th Cross Street, Devi Karumari Nagar, Madras -42. Indeed, in Ex.R.1 Investigator's Report the driver of the lorry was authorised to drive light motor vehicles and from 30.10.1991 was authorised to drive heavy goods vehicle also and the same was renewed from 28.06.1995. Suffice it to point out for this Court that the offending lorry driver Elayasamy was not in possession of a licence/endorsement to drive the hazardous goods vehicle and that he was only possessed of a licence to drive heavy goods vehicle with effect from 30.10.1991 and therefore, there was a violation of policy condition and as such, the Tribunal was quite correct in exonerating the second respondent/Insurance Company from its liability to pay and moreover, the appellants/petitioners have not proved that the driver Elayasamy had the valid licence in regard to the type of vehicle viz., hazardous vehicle involved in the accident and consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. {Para 16}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

C.M.A. (NPD) No. 10 of 2004

Decided On: 11.06.2009

Nagamani and Ors. Vs. Singaravelu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Venugopal, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/1293/2009

Print Page

J & K HC: if driver of offending vehicle has no endorsement permitting him to drive vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation

It is, thus, clear that the owner was aware of the nature of licence possessed by the driver engaged by him and also he was aware of the fact that on the driving licence of the driver, there was no such endorsement of carrying dangerous and hazardous goods.

12. Learned Tribunal seems to have acted too liberally in taking the view that the driver of the offending vehicle was competent to drive gas tanker for which he had undergone training. It is not a case of merely driving a vehicle of the type other than the one for which licence had been issued. It is rather a case of driving a special type of vehicle, which is meant for carrying dangerous and hazardous gas. Bringing out vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods on public places involves a great element of risk to life and property of public at large. Owners of such vehicles must exercise special care to ensure that such vehicles are entrusted for driving and given in the charge of persons, who are duly trained and specifically authorized to take charge of such vehicles. No lenient view is justified if breach in this regard is proved by the insurer.

13. In my considered view, the assertion of learned counsel appearing for the insurance company regarding the fact that there was no endorsement on the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle carrying hazardous substance is legally tenable inasmuch as it is not a case of driving a vehicle of a type other than for which licence has been issued. Here the breach relates not to the type of vehicle but to the kind of goods for which the vehicle is meant for.

14. Viewed thus, appeal succeeds and the appellant-insurance company cannot be saddled with liability of indemnifying the owner (insured).

15. For all that has been said and discussed above, appeal is allowed to the extent of exonerating the appellant-insurance company from satisfying the award. Award and judgment rendered by the learned tribunal is modified by providing that the award shall be satisfied by the owner of the offending tanker-respondent No. 2.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU

CIMA No. 13/2010 and CMP No. 14/2010

Decided On: 24.04.2017

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subash Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tashi Rabstan, J.

Citation: MANU/JK/0587/2017, 2018 ACJ 1250

Print Page

Best Websites for Converting Marathi Judgments into English

 Converting a Marathi court judgment into English is now easier because several websites allow the user to upload the full PDF and receive an English version in return. This is particularly useful where judgments are downloaded from the eCourts portal in text-based PDF form and a quick working translation is needed for reading, review, or research.

At the same time, not every translation website is equally suitable for legal documents. A good platform for this purpose should support full-document upload, Marathi-to-English translation, layout preservation, and, ideally, better handling of court orders or legal terminology.

Why website-based conversion is useful

Print Page