The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that in the absence of oral testimony from the licensing authority, a verification report alone is insufficient proof of a fake driving licence for absolving an insurer’s liability to compensate third parties. The decision upholds settled precedent on evidentiary burden and strict liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, and serves as binding authority for accident compensation claims in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1496/2018 of BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs SMT. PARWATI DEVI |
| CNR | CGHC010287712018 |
| Date of Registration | 12-09-2018 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the law on insurer’s burden of proof and strict liability; upholds the Tribunal’s judgment |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether an insurer can avoid liability for third-party compensation by producing only a verification report (without oral evidence from the issuing authority) to prove the driver’s licence was fake. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The insurer bears the burden to prove that the driver’s licence is fake in order to avoid liability for third-party compensation. A verification report obtained from the RTO, though a public document and admissible under Section 74/76 of the Evidence Act, cannot alone establish the invalidity of the licence unless corroborated by oral testimony or supporting evidence from the licensing authority. The Tribunal retains procedural discretion in deciding how evidence is to be received. Strict liability under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act governs the insurer’s obligation to pay third-party compensation; defects or alleged breaches not clearly proved do not absolve the insurer. The High Court found the insurer did not discharge its burden and upheld the Tribunal’s judgment. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The judgment discusses application of Supreme Court guidelines on strict liability of insurer and recoverability, but does not specify titles of precedents relied upon. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on distinction between admissibility and proof (“public document” status does not equal establishment of fact), and the allocation of evidentiary burden; interprets Sections 3, 5, 147, and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 74, 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The case arises from a fatal accident on 18.03.2015 resulting in the death of Saryu Kumar Sharma. The dependents claimed compensation, alleging rash and negligent driving by the truck owner’s driver. The insurer argued that the driver had a fake licence, producing a verification report (Exh. D-2) from RTO Hissar, but failed to secure oral testimony from the issuing authority. The Tribunal held the insurer liable, doubting the sufficiency of the verification report. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s findings, holding that the burden to prove the licence was fake had not been discharged by the insurer. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Tribunals, and appellate courts hearing insurer liability and fake licence defences in motor accident compensation matters |
| Follows | Supreme Court guidelines on liability of insurer and proof requirements in fake licence defences; affirms procedural and evidentiary law under the MV Act |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that producing a verification report from the RTO, without accompanying oral testimony from the licensing authority, will not suffice to discharge the insurer’s burden of proof regarding a fake licence.
- Clarifies that a “public document” under Sections 74/76 of the Evidence Act is admissible, but proof of content and fact requires corroboration by supporting evidence.
- Highlights procedural discretion of the Tribunal in regulating evidence; failure to secure presence of the licensing officer cannot be shifted to the Tribunal if due diligence is not demonstrated.
- Insurer’s liability for third-party compensation endures in the absence of concrete proof of fake licence, even if the insurer diligently attempts but fails to secure evidence.
- Emphasises the importance of strict compliance with evidentiary standards when insurers raise fake licence defences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether a verification report (Exh. D-2) obtained from the RTO, asserting that the driving licence was not issued, was by itself sufficient proof of a fake licence.
- It acknowledged Exhibit D-2 as a public document admissible under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, but clarified that admissibility does not equate to proof.
- The Court noted that the insurer had not produced oral testimony from the licensing authority or any direct evidence substantively establishing that the licence was never issued.
- The burden of proof, in such cases, rested on the insurer, who failed to discharge it by relying solely on documentary evidence.
- Procedural decisions taken by the Tribunal (e.g., declining to issue commission to examine the RTO official) were within its discretion; the insurer’s inability to produce evidence could not render the Tribunal responsible.
- Even if the insurer diligently attempted to further its defence, strict liability principles under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act required the insurer to compensate third-party victims unless clear, corroborated evidence of a fake licence is adduced.
- The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal’s interpretation of evidentiary and statutory requirements for insurer liability.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant Insurance Company):
- The Tribunal erred in holding that liability lay with the insurance company despite evidence that the driver’s licence was fake.
- Exhibit D-2 (verification report by RTO, Hissar) is a public document that proves the driver lacked a valid licence.
- The Tribunal wrongly refused the application to summon the RTO official for oral examination and declined a commission for the same.
- Burden to produce the licensing officer should not fall on the insurer when procedural requests are denied by the Tribunal.
- Owner did not show she acted with reasonable care in verifying the driver’s licence, constituting willful breach of policy terms.
- Statutory duties under Sections 3 and 5 of the MV Act were violated.
Respondent (Claimants):
- Tribunal’s award is correct, proper, and in accordance with law.
- Insurer failed to produce proper evidence; a verification report alone is not enough to prove the licence was fake.
- The insurer had a full opportunity to adduce evidence and cannot blame the Tribunal for its own inability.
- Owner exercised due care in employing the driver.
- Strict liability for third-party claims cannot be avoided by the insurer on such grounds; recovery rights, if any, are available separately.
- Tribunal applied settled Supreme Court law on insurer liability.
Factual Background
This case arises out of a fatal road accident on 18 March 2015, in which Saryu Kumar Sharma died after a collision allegedly caused by a truck driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased’s legal heirs filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurer raised a defence that the driver’s licence was fake, producing a verification report from the RTO, but failed to secure oral testimony from the licensing authority. The Tribunal held the insurer liable to pay compensation.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3 (MV Act, 1988): No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a public place unless he holds an effective driving licence.
- Section 5 (MV Act, 1988): Owner’s duty to ensure the person driving the vehicle holds a valid licence.
- Section 147 and 149 (MV Act, 1988): Mandate compulsory insurance for third-party risks and cast primary liability on insurers to satisfy awards.
- Sections 74 & 76 (Indian Evidence Act, 1872): Define and govern admissibility of public documents, requiring production and certification.
- The Court noted that admissibility as a public document does not substitute for substantive proof where legal consequences depend on a fact being established.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court applies and affirms settled law on insurer liability and evidentiary requirements; does not overrule prior precedents or create new law.