Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1141 (RAJ)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SONI

2004-08-10

PRAKASH TATIA

body2004
Judgment PRAKASH TATIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. ( 2 ) IN Appeal No. 892 of 2003 only point raised by the appellant is short one. ( 3 ) AS per sub-section (c) of section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988), the owner and the driver are under obligation to furnish information about the insurance policy number and period of its validity, date, time and place of accident, particulars of person injured or killed in the accident, name of the driver and particulars of his driving licence to the insurance company, in case the insured vehicle met with an accident. In the present case, owner and driver of the vehicle failed to provide this information to the insurance company. Therefore, according to appellant insurance company, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the owner and driver of the vehicle and the Tribunal should have drawn presumption that either the driver had no driving licence at the relevant time or it was not a valid driving licence. ( 4 ) I considered the submission of the learned counsel for appellant. Sub-clause (c) of section 134 of the Act of 1988 is an enabling provision, which casts duty upon the owner and driver of the vehicle to give information to the insurance company, but this cannot absolve the insurance company from discharging their burden to prove their defence. ( 5 ) THE insurance company was fully conscious that as per sub-section (c) of section 134 of the Act of 1988, the driver and the owner of the vehicle were under obligation to give particulars of the driving licence, but despite this fact, they did not make any efforts to get this information from the driver and owner of the vehicle through the court by moving an application as well as by seeking summons for production of documents from either other party or calling driver and owner to produce the documents. The complete procedure is given for summoning of the documents from the persons as well as for discovery of the documents from the other party. Therefore, in all cases it cannot be presumed that driver or owner of the vehicle deliberately and purposefully withheld the information from the insurance company. The complete procedure is given for summoning of the documents from the persons as well as for discovery of the documents from the other party. Therefore, in all cases it cannot be presumed that driver or owner of the vehicle deliberately and purposefully withheld the information from the insurance company. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also submits that the challan was filed against the driver of the vehicle for not having any driving licence with him. Even if, the challan was filed against the driver of the vehicle under section 182 read with section 3 of the Act of 1988, it is of no consequence because the challan is only a finding recorded by the police during investigation. Even conviction under this section itself cannot be a ground for holding that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at relevant time. ( 7 ) APART from the above, it is no case of the insurance company that the owner of the vehicle knowingly and voluntarily handed over the vehicle to the driver, who had no valid driving licence and he committed breach of the conditions of the policy. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, S. B. C. M. A. No. 892 of 2003 is dismissed. ( 9 ) S. B. C. M. A. Nos. DR (J) 5186 and 5187 of 2003 have been filed by appellant insurance company but after a delay of 5 days only. Since the appellant submitted an application under section 5 of Limitation act, therefore, this court directed to issue notice of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to the respondents. Since, Appeal No. 892 of 2003 is arising out of the same award, which is impugned in these two other Appeal Nos. 5186 and 5187 of 2003 filed after the expiry of the period of limitation, therefore, these two appeals are also examined on merit at the request of learned counsel for the appellant as only point involved in these two appeals are the same as which is involved in the s. B. C. M. A. No. 892 of 2003. In view of the above decision given in the Appeal No. 892 of 2003, these two appeals are also dismissed. Appeals dismissed.