Summary
The insurer was absolved on the finding that the driver’s licence was fake, with recovery permitted from the vehicle owner after payment to the claimants. The Supreme Court held that falsity alone did not establish the owner’s breach and remanded only the allocation of liability between owner and insurer for proper examination of the evidence.
Issues
- Whether a fake driving licence alone absolved the insurer without examination of the insured owner’s knowledge and care.
Provisions considered
- Section 149(2)(a)(ii), as applicable, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988A fake-licence defence required examination of the insured owner’s default, knowledge and reasonable care; the fake licence alone did not establish the insurer’s exemption. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Mere falsity of the driver’s licence, even if conceded, does not by itself absolve the insurer. The owner’s knowledge and conduct require examination; an owner who knowingly permits a driver with a fake licence exposes himself to liability. The insurer’s case that adequate care was lacking must be assessed on the evidence. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court analysed the relevant pleadings and evidence concerning the owner’s knowledge and conduct. That omission required reconsideration without any final Supreme Court finding on the merits of the competing liability positions. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12, 13, 15)
- Remand was confined to whether owner or insurer must bear compensation liability. No other issue could be reopened, and the compensation already paid to the claimants was outside the remand. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court judgment was set aside and the owner’s appeal restored for fresh decision limited to allocation of liability between owner and insurer. No costs.