Summary
The Supreme Court directed the insurer to satisfy the accident award first and recover from the vehicle owner, while preserving the finding supporting its policy defence. The owner had not identified or proved the authorized driver and merely produced a stranger-to-the-pleadings driving licence; no presumption linked its holder to the accident. Those foundational facts had to be established before the burden shifted to the insurer. The compensation amount was unchallenged and remained unchanged.
Issues
- Whether producing a licence without identifying its holder as the authorized driver discharged the owner’s evidentiary burden.
- Whether the insurer should nevertheless pay the victims and recover from the owner.
Held
- The owner had to plead and prove basic facts within his knowledge identifying the driver, his authorization and valid licence. A vague assertion and production of Joginder Singh’s licence, without linking him to the vehicle at the relevant time or supporting testimony, did not discharge that burden or shift it to the insurer. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The vehicle’s insurance certificate alone did not resolve the proved defence. The owner had not appealed the adverse findings, and the claimants raised no challenge to quantum; those matters were not reopened. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Even where an insurer establishes its defence, the court may on the circumstances direct initial payment to third-party victims with recovery against the owner, following Swaran Singh. Applying that principle to the established policy here, the insurer had to satisfy the unchanged award first and could recover according to law. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed to the extent of directing the insurer to pay the existing award first, with liberty to recover from the vehicle owner in accordance with law. Quantum unchanged. No costs.