Chhattisgarh High Court has held that where the driver of the offending vehicle lacked a valid and effective licence for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ on the date of accident, and the owner failed to demonstrate due diligence, the insurer stands exonerated and the liability to compensate third-party claimants rests solely on the owner. The decision applies precedent from the Supreme Court and clarifies the allocation of liability, serving as binding authority within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1520/2018 of KANTILAL CHOPDA Vs MANNU LAL NAYAK |
| CNR | CGHC010296032018 |
| Date of Registration | 15-09-2018 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that where, on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective transport vehicle licence, and the owner failed in their duty of due diligence, there is a fundamental breach of the insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In such situations, liability to pay compensation is not with the insurer, but solely upon the owner. The direction to have the insurer pay first and recover from the owner (as per Swaran Singh) is not automatic and depends upon whether the owner exercised due care. The Tribunal’s contrary findings were set aside, and the insurance company was exonerated from liability. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court relied on statutory interpretation of Section 15 of the MV Act, Supreme Court guidance on owner’s due diligence, and evidence of non-renewal of driver’s endorsement. The object of third-party insurance is to protect victims, but not to indemnify where there is fundamental breach due to owner’s negligence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | In April 2016, a truck driven without a valid transport vehicle endorsement (renewal had lapsed since 2013 and was renewed only in 2017) struck a motorcycle, causing injuries. The claimants sought compensation; the Tribunal found breach but initially required the insurer to pay and recover. On appeal, facts established that the owner failed to ensure the driver’s licence was valid at the time. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Tribunals outside Chhattisgarh |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that the insurer is exonerated from all liability when the driver’s transport vehicle authorisation has lapsed and the owner has failed to exercise due diligence, even in third-party claims.
- The direction for “pay and recover” (insurer pays first, then recovers from owner) is not automatic; it depends on owner’s bona fide conduct.
- Lawyers must carefully check the statutory renewal periods of driving licences and the precise dates of authorisations for transport vehicles.
- Documentary evidence about attempted verification or skill test by the owner is critical – lack thereof can shift entire liability to the vehicle owner.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether the insured vehicle’s driver held a valid transport vehicle endorsement at the accident time. On evidence, the endorsement had expired in 2013 and was not renewed until 2017; thus, it was not valid on the accident date.
- Analysing Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Supreme Court precedent (including Swaran Singh and Ram Babu Tiwari), the Court held that if a renewal is sought more than 30 days after expiry, the licence is valid only from the date of renewal—not retroactively.
- The owner’s duty under the contract and statute includes verifying that a driver holds an effective licence; failure to do so is a fundamental breach under Section 149(2).
- Swaran Singh was interpreted to mean that insurer’s initial liability to pay and recover only arises where the owner has exercised due diligence; here, there was none.
- Therefore, initial and ultimate liability to pay compensation lies solely on the owner, exonerating the insurer entirely.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Insurance Company)
- The Tribunal wrongly directed the insurer to first pay and recover; having found breach, liability should be shifted to the owner.
- The driver lacked a valid and effective licence for transport vehicle on the accident date (expired in 2013, renewed in 2017).
- Owner failed in statutory and contractual obligation to check licence validity.
- Medical evidence for injuries and disability was insufficiently proved by the claimants.
Respondent (Owner of Offending Vehicle)
- Vehicle was insured at time of accident (Exhibit D-3C evidences this).
- The driver had a valid licence issued in 2006, valid up to 2026 (Exhibits D-1C and D-2C).
- The owner conducted a skill test and reviewed the licence; insurer did not dispute owner’s due diligence.
- No unlawful use of vehicle established.
- Even if licence invalid, no evidence owner had knowledge; thus, insurer should pay.
Factual Background
On 19 April 2016, a truck (the offending vehicle), alleged to be driven rashly and negligently without a valid transport vehicle endorsement, collided with a motorcycle, causing injury to both riders. Both injured parties filed claims under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation before the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal initially held that although there was breach of policy due to the invalid licence, the insurer should pay first and recover from the owner. On appeal, evidence showed the driver’s endorsement had lapsed well before the accident, and the owner had not exercised required diligence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 15, Motor Vehicles Act, interpreted: If renewal of a driving licence is sought more than 30 days after expiry, the new validity runs only from renewal date, not retroactively, and there is no licence in force during the gap.
- Section 149(2), Motor Vehicles Act: Insurer can be exonerated for breach, particularly where driver lacks valid licence and owner fails in duty of due care.
- The Court closely followed the Supreme Court’s narrow reading, denying insurer liability where owner has been negligent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were established; the decision follows statutory and Supreme Court guidance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies established Supreme Court authority on liability and due diligence in insurance breaches under the MV Act.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44966
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru (2003) 3 SCC 338
- Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 165