LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Compensation - No Valid Driving Licence.

Page no : 2

Pankaj Rai (Lawyer)     08 July 2009

In the present case Insurance company is liable for third party risks.

Pankaj Rai (Lawyer)     08 July 2009

insurance company is liable for third vparty risks.

a.manoharan (Advocate 94431 45884 advocatemanoharan@gmail.com)     08 July 2009

All of my very dear experts,

all of you forget one very very basical legal thing that one who can not claim on his own wrongs. Theft is punishable. Then, where is the liability? please discuss on that angle.

a.manoharan (Advocate 94431 45884 advocatemanoharan@gmail.com)     08 July 2009

All of my very dear experts,

all of you forget one very very basical legal thing that one who can not claim on his own wrongs. Theft is punishable. Then, where is the liability? please discuss on that angle.

 

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     09 July 2009

Is it so that sometimes an answer of aquery is appearing in some other thread?

I think mr manoharan's answer is to a diferent question. this question is as under:

Whether an Insuraance Company can be held responsible for making compensation in case it is proved that the vehicle insured was driven by a person having no valid driving licence. Please discuss case law also.

Cordial invitation for discussion among brothers & sisters from the legal fraternity, students and the person interested on the subject matter.

 

1 Like

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     09 July 2009

in the present query there is no reference to theft.

jatin (self)     23 July 2009

SIr, sending you certain information, which will be helpful to you to arrive at some judgment. Driving License: Earlier not holding a valid driving license was a good defence to the Insurance Company to avoid liability. It was been held by the Supreme Court that the Insurance Company is not liable for claim if driver is not holding effective & valid driving licence. It has also been held that the learner's licence absolves the insurance Company from liability, but later Supreme Court in order to give purposeful meaning to the Act have made this defence very difficult. In Sohan Lal Pasi's case it has been held for the first time by the Supreme Court that the breach of condition should be with the knowledge of the owner. If owner's knowledge with reference to fake driving licence held by driver is not proved by the Insurance Company, such defence, which was otherwise available, can not absolve insurer from the liability. Recently in a dynamic judgment in case of Swaran Singh, the Supreme Court has almost taken away the said right by holding; (i) Proving breach of condition or not holding driving licence or holding fake licence or carrying gratuitous passenger would not absolve the Insurance Company until it is proved that the said breach was with the knowledge of owner. (ii) Learner's licence is a licence and will not absolve Insurance Company from liability. (iii) The breach of the conditions of the policy even within the scope of Section 149(2) should be material one which must have been effect cause of accident and thereby absolving requirement of driving licence to those accidents with standing vehicle, fire or murder during the course of use of vehicle. Regards, jatin thakkar advocate ahmedabad cell: 98250 60656
1 Like

a.manoharan (Advocate 94431 45884 advocatemanoharan@gmail.com)     23 July 2009

Latest position is that pay compensation by the insurer and get back from the person who is liable. Even , this is also getting changed by the latest judgement passed in Madurai High Court Bench saying that this is inherent powers of the HC and Sc and the other subordinate courts can not have such jurisdiction.

1 Like

Kiran Kumar (Lawyer)     29 July 2009

even m contesting a similar case here in Chandigarh.

 

but the law as said above is not in my favour.

 

with due respect to Shree, the 16th point my frnd has mentioned has been reversed by the Hon'ble SC last yr.

 

its a 2008-09 judgment, i tried to find it now, i ll mention it tommorrow.

 

here the insurance co. is not liable in such circumstance.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     02 August 2009

Yogita(student) is rightly answered Insurance co is liable to pay the compensation to the victims and insurer can recover from the owner later

HATINDER KUMAR (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT)     04 August 2009

good very use full thanks very much sir

vijay kumar (practise)     05 August 2009

3rd party insurance means.... the saftey of 3rd person who is neither driver nor owner of offending vehicle.in this case insurance co liable bcos accident has been done by insyared vehicle whose driven by the thief without D.L, but there is not a concent of owner this is also an accident( thefting of vehicle) 

sachin (advocate)     08 August 2009

 It's depend upon on the circumtances, I think insurer will not held liable for payment of claim money, where driver does not possess valid DL., no matter whosoever drives the vehicle.

Pankaj Rai (Lawyer)     15 August 2009

Dear,If the DL is not found valid and effective at the time of accident ,No liability can be fastened upon Insurance company.

Pankaj Rai (Lawyer)     15 August 2009

If DL is not  found valid and effective at the time of accident, no liability can be fastened upon Insurance comp[any for third party risks.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading