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