The Madras Excessive Courtroom dominated that Part 5 of the Motor Autos Act, 1988 mandates the proprietor of the automobile to not allow any one who didn’t have a driving license to drive the automobile.

Briefly, the Excessive Courtroom clarified that driving a automobile regardless of non-holding of an efficient driving license was not only a violation of the insurance coverage coverage situation, it was a statutory violation as effectively.

The Single Decide Bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar noticed that “When the insurance coverage firm has alleged statutory violation on the a part of the proprietor of the tipper lorry, the burden is upon the proprietor of the tipper lorry to determine that his driver was having a legitimate and efficient driving license on the related level of time”.

The Bench thereby said that the insurance coverage firm would first fulfill the award and thereafter may get well the identical from the proprietor of the offending automobile and accordingly, the quantum, apportionment, and curiosity awarded by the MACT was confirmed.

Advocate A. Ilango appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate D. Gnanasekaran appeared for the Respondent.

Going by the background of the case, the Insurance coverage Firm challenged the award handed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) totally on the bottom of legal responsibility. The injured claimant had contended that whereas he was driving a two-wheeler, a tipper lorry belonging to the primary Respondent which was insured with the second Respondent got here from the other way in a rash and negligent method and dashed proper towards his two-wheeler. The claimant had sustained grievous accidents and therefore, had prayed for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in direction of compensation. The proprietor of the offending automobile had remained ex-parte and the insurance coverage firm had filed a counter contending that the driving force of the lorry was not having a badge to drive the heavy automobile on the related level of time. They additional questioned the style of the accident and the quantum of compensation as prayed for. The MACT arrived at a discovering that the accident had taken place solely as a result of rash and negligent driving on the a part of the driving force of the primary Respondent, and therefore mounted the compensation at Rs.3,74,520/- and directed the insurance coverage firm to fulfill the award. Therefore, the current Appellant approached the Excessive Courtroom difficult the award handed by the MACT.

After contemplating the submission, the Bench said that the offending automobile was a tipper lorry which was categorised as a heavy automobile and it required transport endorsement for driving the stated automobile.

The Bench additional famous that the driving force was not holding a transport endorsement on the time of the accident, and thus, there was a violation of coverage situation warranting invocation of the precept of pay and restoration.

Contemplating the submission of the Respondent that until the insurance coverage firm established that there was negligence on the a part of the proprietor in handing the automobile to such an individual was not having a legitimate driving license, the precept of pay and restoration couldn’t be invoked, the Bench highlighted that the insurance coverage firm had discharged their burden by establishing the truth that the driving force of the offending automobile was not having an efficient driving license on the time of the accident.

The Excessive Courtroom additionally clarified that when the insurance coverage firm had alleged statutory violation on the a part of the proprietor of the tipper lorry, the burden was upon the proprietor of the tipper lorry to determine that his driver was having a legitimate and efficient driving license on the related level of time.

Subsequently, given the violation of the coverage situation and statutory violation, the Excessive Courtroom concluded that the insurance coverage firm would first fulfill the award and thereafter, may get well the identical from the proprietor of the tipper lorry.

Trigger Title: Department Supervisor, Nationwide Insurance coverage Firm Restricted v. Murugan and Anr.

Click on right here to learn/obtain the Judgment

Adblock check (Why?)