Vehicle Owner Bears Burden to Prove Driver’s Valid License: Jharkhand High Court Overturns ₹6.63 Lakh Award

Post By 24law
December 27, 2024

Authored By Kiran Raj

In the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaibun Nisha and Ors. (Misc. Appeal No. 642 of 2018), the Jharkhand High Court, heard by Justice Subhash Chand, adjudicated on the critical issue of liability and burden of proof in motor vehicle accident claims. The appeal challenged the award rendered by the District Judge-VIII-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-VIII, Giridih, in M.V. Claim Case No. 64 of 2014, which directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of ₹6,63,000 to the claimants, along with interest.

The deceased, a mason by profession, succumbed to injuries sustained in a road accident involving a Tempo. The claimants, legal heirs of the deceased, asserted that the driver’s rash and negligent conduct caused the Tempo to overturn, resulting in fatal injuries. An FIR and subsequent charge sheet substantiated these allegations.

The owner and driver of the vehicle contended that the accident resulted from a mechanical defect and not negligence. It was contended that liability, if any, should rest with the Insurance Company since the vehicle was insured. The appellant-Insurance Company countered that the owner and driver failed to furnish critical documents, such as a valid and effective driving license, thereby breaching policy terms.

The Court examined the evidence in light of statutory provisions and established precedents. It was held that the initial burden of proof lies on the owner of the vehicle to demonstrate compliance with statutory and policy obligations.

Justice Subhash Chand observed:

"The very burden of proof lies upon the owner of the offending vehicle even if the said vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company that it was being driven by its driver with a valid and effective driving license. If the initial burden is discharged by the owner, then the liability shifts upon only the Insurance Company."

The Court found that the owner and driver did not provide any documentary evidence, such as the driver's license or other vehicular documents, nor did they appear as witnesses to substantiate their claims. Similarly, the claimants failed to produce evidence to demonstrate adherence to vehicular regulations.

Relying on precedents, including Pappu & Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 208 and United India Insurance Company v. Sanjay Kumar (2013 ACJ 1223), the Court held that the Insurance Company’s liability is contingent upon the owner proving compliance with the terms of the insurance policy and statutory requirements. The Court stated:

"Without disclosing the name of the driver or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the driver had a valid license, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability."

The High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the Tribunal's award in so far as it imposed liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. It was held tha: "The liability to pay the said amount of compensation along with interest will be of the owner of the offending vehicle."

The Court further directed that any compensation paid by the Insurance Company is recoverable from the owner of the vehicle.