Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Burden of Proof in Fake Driving License Upon Insurer: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld strict standards for motor insurance liability, emphasizing the burden of proof in cases involving the validity of a driver’s license. The verdict came in response to a Special Leave Petition filed by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging the reversal of a Tribunal Award by the Delhi High Court.

The case revolved around a fatal motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2010 when a Tempo vehicle, driven recklessly, collided with a motorcycle, resulting in the tragic death of Dharambir. The dependents of the deceased sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, leading to an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

However, the insurance company contested liability, arguing that the driver of the Tempo vehicle possessed a fake driving license. The Tribunal had directed the insurance company to deposit the awarded amount with the right to recover it from the vehicle’s owners.

The dispute escalated to the Delhi High Court, which ruled in favor of the vehicle owners. The High Court’s decision hinged on the absence of a stipulation in the insurance policy or the law requiring the verification of a driver’s license.

The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirmed key legal principles established in previous decisions. It emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the insurance company to establish a willful breach of policy conditions by the insured to absolve the insurer of liability.

In its ruling, the Court stated, “The mere possession of a fake driving license, per se, would not absolve the insurer.” The judgment highlighted the necessity for insurers to prove that the insured had been negligent in verifying the driver’s license before employment.

The Court’s decision, delivered by Justice SANJAY KUMAR, underscored the importance of evidence and due diligence in such cases. It criticized insurance companies for routinely raising unmerited pleas and pursuing appeals, potentially wasting valuable judicial resources.

This landmark judgment serves as a significant precedent, reiterating the need for insurers to meet the high burden of proof when contesting liability based on the validity of a driver’s license.

Date of Decision: 30 October 2023

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Geeta Devi and others.

 

Similar News