{"id":36335,"date":"2001-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001"},"modified":"2015-08-27T08:51:52","modified_gmt":"2015-08-27T03:21:52","slug":"new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001","title":{"rendered":"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Thomas<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2387  of  2001\nAppeal (civil)\t2388\t of  2001\nAppeal (civil)\t2389\t of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., SHIMLA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKAMLA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/03\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. Thomas &amp; R.P. Sethi.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>THOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    If\ta fake driving licence happened to be renewed by the<br \/>\nstatutory  authorities,\t would the fakeness of the  original<br \/>\ndocument  get  legally sanctified?  If it cannot, would\t the<br \/>\nInsurance  Company be liable to pay compensation in  respect<br \/>\nof a motor accident occurred while the vehicle was driven by<br \/>\na  person  holding such a sham licence?\t These are the\tmain<br \/>\nquestions involved in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>    An accident occurred on 1.3.1993 when a truck, driven by<br \/>\nthe  8th respondent (Liaqat Ali) capsized.  Three inmates of<br \/>\nthe  vehicle  died  in the accident.  Legal heirs  of  those<br \/>\nthree  deceased\t persons preferred claims before  the  Motor<br \/>\nAccident  Claims  Tribunal concerned (for short the  Claims<br \/>\nTribunal)  as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,<br \/>\n1988  (for  short the Act).  The owner of the  vehicle\tas<br \/>\nwell as the driver were made parties, besides impleading the<br \/>\ninsurer\t  (appellant  Insurance\t Company)   in\tthe   claims<br \/>\nproceedings.  It is admitted that the truck was then covered<br \/>\nby a valid insurance policy issued by the appellant company.<br \/>\nAs  we\tare now concerned only with the contentions  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  Insurance  Company,\tthat too restricted  to\t the<br \/>\nquestion  relating  to the driving licence held by  the\t 8th<br \/>\nrespondent,  we\t do  not  think it worth  referring  to\t the<br \/>\ndetails\t of other pleadings set out by the claimants and the<br \/>\ncontending resistors.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t  appellant  Insurance\tCompany,   in  the   written<br \/>\nstatement  filed  before the Claims Tribunal, pleaded  inter<br \/>\nalia  that  the driver of the vehicle did not have  a  valid<br \/>\ndriving\t licence  and hence there was breach of\t the  policy<br \/>\ncondition  and\tthe corollary is that the Insurance  Company<br \/>\ncannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation to<br \/>\nany  one in respect of the accident referred to in the claim<br \/>\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t insured owner of the vehicle as well as the  driver<br \/>\n8th  respondent\t relied\t on a document purporting  to  be  a<br \/>\ndriving\t licence  issued  by the licensing  authority  (SDM,<br \/>\nPaonta,\t Sirmaur  District  in\t Himachal  Pradesh)  bearing<br \/>\nNo.1874-P\/90.  The document further shows that it was issued<br \/>\nin  favour  of\tLiaqat Ali whose photo\taffixed\t thereon  is<br \/>\nadmitted  to  be  that of 8th respondent.  That\t licence  is<br \/>\nclaimed\t to  have been renewed by the  Licensing  Authority,<br \/>\nRohru  (H.P.)  on  17.4.1993, for a period of  three  years.<br \/>\nAccording  to the insurance company, the said document is  a<br \/>\nfabricated  one\t as  no\t such licence  was  granted  by\t the<br \/>\nLicensing Authority (SDM), Paonta.\n<\/p>\n<p>    To\tsubstantiate  the   contention\tappellant  insurance<br \/>\ncompany\t examined three witnesses.  RW-2 was  Superintendent<br \/>\nin  the\t office\t of the SDM, Paonta.  He said that  no\tsuch<br \/>\nlicence\t was  issued  from that office to  a  person  called<br \/>\nLiaqat\tAli.  He further said that no intimation  whatsoever<br \/>\nwas  received  by  the\tSDM,   Paonta,\tthat  the  licensing<br \/>\nauthority  of  Rohru (SDM) had renewed the licence  No.1874-<br \/>\nP\/90.\tBut  RW-3  a clerk in the office of the SDM,  Rohru<br \/>\nhas stated that the licence bearing No.1874-P\/90 which stood<br \/>\nin  the name of Liaqat Ali was renewed by the SDM, Rohru  on<br \/>\n17.4.1993,  for a period of three years with effect from the<br \/>\ndate  of its expiry.  One Anil Chawla, legal officer of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  insurance company at Shimla, was examined as RW-4<br \/>\nand  he\t said that on enquiry it was found that SDM,  Paonta<br \/>\nhad  not issued any driving licence to Liaqat Ali and  hence<br \/>\nthe  document produced by the 8th respondent as his  driving<br \/>\nlicence is a forged document.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The driver Liaqat Ali was not examined before the Claims<br \/>\nTribunal.   But the owner of the truck gave evidence to\t the<br \/>\neffect\tthat  he engaged the 8th respondent for driving\t the<br \/>\ntruck  only  after satisfying himself that R-8 had  a  valid<br \/>\nlicence.   He  admitted that the said satisfaction is  based<br \/>\nentirely on looking at the questioned document.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Claims\t Tribunal  repelled the\t contention  of\t the<br \/>\ninsurance  company for which the following observations have<br \/>\nbeen made:\n<\/p>\n<p>    Evidently,\tit was for the New India Assurance  Company<br \/>\nto  prove  that the truck driver did not have valid  driving<br \/>\nlicence\t on  the  date of accident.  Apparently,  the  truck<br \/>\ndriver\thad a valid driving licence on the date of  accident<br \/>\nbecause\t the same had been issued in his favour by the\tSDM,<br \/>\nRohru.\t Admittedly,  whenever\ta licence  is  renewed,\t the<br \/>\nLicensing  Authority is required to satisfy itself about the<br \/>\ngenuineness  of\t the  earlier  licence.\t Thus,\tthere  is  a<br \/>\npresumption to the effect that while renewing the licence of<br \/>\nShri  Liaqat Ali, the Licensing Authority, i.e.\t SDM,  Rohru<br \/>\nhad  satisfied himself about the genuineness of the  earlier<br \/>\nlicence.   Therefore, I am of the view that the statement of<br \/>\nShri  Anil Chawla (RW-4) is not sufficient to prove that the<br \/>\nearlier\t licence  of the truck driver which was\t renewed  by<br \/>\nSDM, Rohru was a fake licence.\tAs such, I hold that the New<br \/>\nIndia  Assurance  Company  has failed to  prove\t that  truck<br \/>\ndriver\tdid  not have valid driving licence on the  date  of<br \/>\naccident.\n<\/p>\n<p>    When  the matter was taken up before the High Court\t the<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the  insurance company contended that  if\t the<br \/>\noriginal  licence  was\tshown  to be a\tforged\tdocument  no<br \/>\nauthority  has\tthe  power to validate it and  even  if\t any<br \/>\nvalidation  was\t made  on account of a\tmistaken  impression<br \/>\nabout  the genuineness of the document it would not gain any<br \/>\nlegitimacy.   The  counsel in the High Court relied  on\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of  a\t Full Bench of the Punjab and  Haryana\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  in <a href=\"\/doc\/1036694\/\">National Insurance Co.  Ltd.\tvs.  Santro Devi and<br \/>\nors.<\/a>   {1997(1)\t ACJ 111} which held that a forged  driving<br \/>\nlicence\t though\t may be validly renewed, would not become  a<br \/>\nvalid  driving\tlicence or a duly issued driving licence  in<br \/>\naccordance  with  the Motor Vehicles Act. In spite  of\tthe<br \/>\nsaid  decision the Division Bench of the High Court did\t not<br \/>\naccept\tthe  contention of the insurance company  for  which<br \/>\nlearned judges adopted the following reasoning:\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the  perusal of the record we have  noticed  that<br \/>\nlicence No.1874-P\/90 was issued by Registering and Licensing<br \/>\nAuthority,  Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, which was  valid<br \/>\nfrom  20.3.1990\t to 19.3.1993 and the said licence has\tbeen<br \/>\nmarked\tas  X  by  the Tribunal\t below.\t  Thereafter,  the<br \/>\nLicensing  Authority,  Rohru, District Shimla,\trenewed\t the<br \/>\nlicence\t  of  the  respondent-driver   from   17.4.1993\t  to<br \/>\n16.4.1996.   From the entire evidence on record we find that<br \/>\nat  the\t time of the accident i.e.  on 1.3.1993\t respondent-<br \/>\ndriver of the vehicle was in possession of the valid driving<br \/>\nlicence and the appellant- Assurance Company has not adduced<br \/>\nsufficient  evidence to discharge the burden which was\tcast<br \/>\non it under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tthis  context  learned\tcounsel\t for  the  Insurance<br \/>\nCompany\t invited  our  attention to a  fact  which  occurred<br \/>\nbefore\t the   Claims  Tribunal.    The\t insurer  filed\t  an<br \/>\napplication for permission to lead evidence for proving that<br \/>\nthe  licence produced by the 8th respondent was a fake\tone.<br \/>\nBut  that  application was rejected by the  Claims  Tribunal<br \/>\nbasing on the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court<br \/>\nof  Punjab  and\t Haryana  (which  is  reported\tin  National<br \/>\nInsurance  Co.\t Ltd.  vs.  Sucha Singh and ors.  {1994\t (1)<br \/>\nACJ 374}.  As per the said decision if a licence is renewed<br \/>\nit gets validated in view of the provisions of Section 15 of<br \/>\nthe  Motor  Vehicles Act and the Insurance Company would  be<br \/>\nliable to reimburse the insured the compensation amount paid<br \/>\nto the victims.\t The Claims Tribunal thereupon held that if<br \/>\nthe  licence  was validly renewed by a\tlicensing  authority<br \/>\nthen  it cannot be presumed that the licence was a fake one.<br \/>\nOn  the\t said  reasoning the Claims Tribunal  dismissed\t the<br \/>\napplication of the Insurance Company for leading evidence to<br \/>\nshow  that  the document produced by the 8th respondent\t was<br \/>\nforged.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid decision of<br \/>\nthe Division Bench (National Insurance Co.  Ltd.  vs.  Sucha<br \/>\nSingh)\twas  overruled\tby the Full Bench of the  same\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1036694\/\">National  Insurance Co.  Ltd.  vs.\tSantro\tDevi<\/a><br \/>\n(supra).   Incidentally, we may refer to a decision rendered<br \/>\nby a two-Judge Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1036694\/\">National Insurance Co.<br \/>\nLtd.   vs.   Santro Devi and ors.<\/a>  {1998(1) SCC\t 219}  which<br \/>\npointed\t out that the observations made by the Full Bench in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1036694\/\">National  Insurance Co.\t Ltd.  vs.  Santro Devi<\/a> were  obiter<br \/>\ndicta  because\tthe facts in that case did not\twarrant\t any<br \/>\nsuch observation.\n<\/p>\n<p>    As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake<br \/>\nlicence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on<br \/>\naccount\t of  some officer renewing the same with or  without<br \/>\nknowing\t it  to\t be  forged.  Section 15  of  the  Act\tonly<br \/>\nempowers any licensing authority to renew a driving licence<br \/>\nissued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the<br \/>\ndate of its expiry. No licensing authority has the power to<br \/>\nrenew  a  fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if  at\t all<br \/>\nmade  cannot  transform\t a  fake licence  as  genuine.\t Any<br \/>\ncounterfeit  document  showing that it contains a  purported<br \/>\norder of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit<br \/>\nalbeit\tthe fact that other persons including some statutory<br \/>\nauthorities  would have acted on the document unwittingly on<br \/>\nthe assumption that it is genuine.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and<br \/>\nHaryana\t High  Court  in National Insurance Co.\t  Ltd.\t vs.<br \/>\nSucha  Singh  (supra)  that  renewal  of  a  document  which<br \/>\npurports  to  be a driving licence, will robe even a  forged<br \/>\ndocument  with validity on account of Section 15 of the Act,<br \/>\npropounds a very dangerous proposition.\t If that proposition<br \/>\nis  allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may, no doubt,<br \/>\nthrill\tcounterfeiters\tthe  world  over as  they  would  be<br \/>\nencouraged  to manufacture fake documents in a legion.\tWhat<br \/>\nwas originally a forgery would remain null and void for ever<br \/>\nand  it\t would\tnot acquire legal validity at  any  time  by<br \/>\nwhatever  process of sanctification subsequently done on it.<br \/>\nForgery\t is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford  to<br \/>\nvalidate a forgery.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\tare not considering the question whether the insured<br \/>\nexhausted the enquiry expected of him for satisfying himself<br \/>\nabout  the  genuineness of the document produced by the\t 8th<br \/>\nrespondent  as\this driving licence.  The Insurance  Company<br \/>\nmust  have,  under law, the opportunity to substantiate\t its<br \/>\ncontention  that  the  document is a  fabricated  one.\t The<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal went wrong in denying such an opportunity to<br \/>\nthe appellant Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned  counsel for the respondents next contended that<br \/>\neven  if the driving licence of 8th respondent is proved  to<br \/>\nbe  not\t genuine  it would not be enough for  absolving\t the<br \/>\nInsurance  Company  from  liability.   On  the\tother  hand,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, banking<br \/>\non  the\t provisions  contained in Section 149  of  the\tAct,<br \/>\nsubmitted  that\t the insurer will get  complete\t exoneration<br \/>\nfrom  liability\t on  proof  of\tbreach of  any\tone  of\t the<br \/>\nconditions  of the policy of insurance.\t We have to  examine<br \/>\nthis  contention  as  a decision on the\t same  is  necessary<br \/>\nbefore deciding whether the appellant Insurance Company must<br \/>\nbe  given  a  further opportunity to substantiate  that\t the<br \/>\ndocument is a forged one.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Chapter  XI of the Act contains provisions for insurance<br \/>\nof motor vehicles against third party risk.  Sections 145 to<br \/>\n164  are  subsumed in the said chapter.\t Section 146 of\t the<br \/>\nAct  imposes a prohibition against use of a motor vehicle in<br \/>\npublic\tplace  unless the vehicle is covered by a policy  of<br \/>\ninsurance  complying with the requirements enumerated in the<br \/>\nChapter.   Some categories of vehicles are exempted from the<br \/>\naforesaid compulsion, but we are not concerned with any such<br \/>\ncategory now.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t details  regarding the requirements of\t the  policy<br \/>\nincluding  the\tlimits\tof  liability\tto  be\tinsured\t are<br \/>\nenumerated  in\tSection 147.  Sub-section (3) of  it  states<br \/>\nthat a policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of that<br \/>\nChapter\t unless\t and  until a certificate  of  insurance  is<br \/>\nissued\tby  the insurer in the prescribed form in favour  of<br \/>\nthe insured.  It is in Section 149 that provisions, relating<br \/>\nto  the duty of the insurer for satisfying the judgments and<br \/>\nawards\tin respect of third party claims, are  incorporated.<br \/>\nSub-section  (1)  says\tthat the insurer shall\tpay  to\t the<br \/>\nperson\tentitled to the benefit of a judgment or award as if<br \/>\nthe  insurer  were  the judgment debtor in  respect  of\t the<br \/>\nliability,  when  any  such judgment or\t award\tis  obtained<br \/>\nagainst\t the  insured  in  whose  favour  a  certificate  of<br \/>\ninsurance has been issued.  Of course, the said liability of<br \/>\nthe  insurer  is subject to the maximum sum assured  payable<br \/>\nunder the policy.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Section 149(2) of the Act says that notice regarding the<br \/>\nsuit  or  other\t legal\tproceedings shall be  given  to\t the<br \/>\ninsurer\t if  such  insurer  is\tto  be\tfastened  with\tsuch<br \/>\nliability.   The purpose of giving such notice is to  afford<br \/>\nthe  insurer  to  be  made a party in  the  proceedings\t for<br \/>\ndefending  the action on any one of the grounds mentioned in<br \/>\nthe sub-section.  Among the multiplicity of such grounds the<br \/>\none which is relevant in this case is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n<p>    (a)\t That  there  has  been a  breach  of  a  specified<br \/>\ncondition  of  the  policy,  being   one  of  the  following<br \/>\nconditions, namely:-\n<\/p>\n<p>    (ii)  a condition excluding driving by a named person or<br \/>\npersons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any<br \/>\nperson\twho has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a<br \/>\ndriving licence during the period of disqualification.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Sub-section\t (4) of Section 149 of the Act says that  so<br \/>\nmuch  of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of<br \/>\nthe  person insured by reference to any condition shall\t as<br \/>\nrespects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a<br \/>\npolicy,\t be  of\t no effect. The proviso to  the\t said  sub-<br \/>\nsection\t is  important\tfor the purpose of  considering\t the<br \/>\nquestion  involved  in this case and hence that\t proviso  is<br \/>\nextracted below:\n<\/p>\n<p>    Provided that any sum paid by the insurer in or towards<br \/>\nthe  discharge\tof  any\t liability of any  person  which  is<br \/>\ncovered\t by  the policy by virtue only of  this\t sub-section<br \/>\nshall be recoverable by the insurer form that person.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Similarly,\tin  this context sub-section (5) is  equally<br \/>\nimportant  and hence that is also extracted below:  If\tthe<br \/>\namount which an insurer becomes liable under this section to<br \/>\npay  in respect of a liability incurred by a person  insured<br \/>\nby  a policy, exceeds the amount for which the insurer would<br \/>\napart  from  the provisions of this section be liable  under<br \/>\nthe  policy in respect of that liability, the insurer  shall<br \/>\nbe entitled to recover the excess from that person.\n<\/p>\n<p>    A  reading of the proviso to sub-section (4) as well  as<br \/>\nthe language employed in sub-section (5) would indicate that<br \/>\nthey  are  intended to safeguard the interest of an  insurer<br \/>\nwho  otherwise\thas  no liability to pay any amount  to\t the<br \/>\ninsured\t but  for the provisions contained in Chapter XI  of<br \/>\nthe  Act.   This means, the insurer has to pay to the  third<br \/>\nparties\t only  on  account  of the fact\t that  a  policy  of<br \/>\ninsurance has been issued in respect of the vehicle, but the<br \/>\ninsurer is entitled to recover any such sum from the insured<br \/>\nif  the insurer were not otherwise liable to pay such sum to<br \/>\nthe  insured by virtue of the conditions of the contract  of<br \/>\ninsurance indicated by the policy.\n<\/p>\n<p>    To\trepeat, the effect of the above provisions is  this:<br \/>\nWhen  a valid insurance policy has been issued in respect of<br \/>\na  vehicle  as evidenced by a certificate of  insurance\t the<br \/>\nburden is on the insurer to pay to third parties, whether or<br \/>\nnot  there  has been any breach or violation of\t the  policy<br \/>\nconditions.   But the amount so paid by the insurer to third<br \/>\nparties\t can be allowed to be recovered from the insured  if<br \/>\nas per the policy conditions the insurer had no liability to<br \/>\npay such sum to the insured.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It is advantageous to refer to a two-Judge Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1182839\/\">Skandia  Insurance\tCo.   Ltd.   vs.   Kokilaben<br \/>\nChandravadan  and ors.<\/a>\t{1987 (2) SCC 654}.  Though the said<br \/>\ndecision  related  to  the corresponding provisions  of\t the<br \/>\npredecessor  Act (Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) the observations<br \/>\nmade   in  the\tjudgment  are\tquite  germane\tnow  as\t the<br \/>\ncorresponding  provisions are materially the same as in\t the<br \/>\nAct.   Learned Judges pointed out that the insistence of the<br \/>\nlegislature  that  a motor vehicle can be used in  a  public<br \/>\nplace  only  if\t that  vehicle is covered  by  a  policy  of<br \/>\ninsurance  is not for the purpose of promoting the  business<br \/>\nof  the Insurance Company but to protect the members of\t the<br \/>\ncommunity  who\tbecome\tsufferers on  account  of  accidents<br \/>\narising\t from  use of motor vehicles.  It is pointed out  in<br \/>\nthe decision that such protection would have remained only a<br \/>\npaper  protection if the compensation awarded by the  courts<br \/>\nwere  not  recoverable by the victims (or dependents of\t the<br \/>\nvictims) of the accident.  This is the raison detre for the<br \/>\nlegislature  making it prohibitory for motor vehicles  being<br \/>\nused  in public places without covering third party risks by<br \/>\na policy of insurance.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t principle  laid down in the said decision has\tbeen<br \/>\nfollowed  by a three-Judge Bench of this Court with approval<br \/>\nin  <a href=\"\/doc\/772259\/\">Sohan Lal Passi vs.\t P.  Sesh Reddy and ors.<\/a>  {1996\t (5)<br \/>\nSCC 21}.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t position  can be summed up thus:  The\tinsurer\t and<br \/>\ninsured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy<br \/>\nand  the  insurer is not liable to the insured if  there  is<br \/>\nviolation  of any policy condition.  But the insurer who  is<br \/>\nmade statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties<br \/>\non  account of the certificate of insurance issued shall  be<br \/>\nentitled  to recover from the insured the amount paid to the<br \/>\nthird  parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions<br \/>\non  account  of\t the vehicle being driven  without  a  valid<br \/>\ndriving\t licence.  Learned counsel for the insured contended<br \/>\nthat  it  is enough if he establishes that he made  all\t due<br \/>\nenquiries and believed bona fide that the driver employed by<br \/>\nhim  had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no<br \/>\nbreach\tof the policy condition.  As we have not decided  on<br \/>\nthat contention it is open to the insured to raise it before<br \/>\nthe  Claims Tribunal.  In the present case, if the Insurance<br \/>\nCompany\t succeeds  in establishing that there was breach  of<br \/>\nthe  policy condition, the Claims Tribunal shall direct\t the<br \/>\ninsured\t to pay that amount to the insurer.  In default\t the<br \/>\ninsurer\t shall be allowed to recover that amount (which\t the<br \/>\ninsurer is directed to pay to the claimants &#8211; third parties)<br \/>\nfrom the insured person.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\tmay  point out that as per the order passed by\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  on  6.3.2000,  the appellant  Insurance\tCompany\t was<br \/>\ndirected  to pay the award amount to the claimants.  We\t are<br \/>\ntold  that  the\t amount\t was paid by the  appellant  to\t the<br \/>\nclaimants.   Now the Claims Tribunal has to decide the\tnext<br \/>\nquestion  whether  the\tinsurance  company  is\tentitled  to<br \/>\nrecover that amount from the owner of the vehicle on account<br \/>\nof  the\t vehicle being driven by a person who had  no  valid<br \/>\nlicence to drive the vehicle.  For that purpose we remit the<br \/>\ncase  to  the  Claims  Tribunal.  An  opportunity  shall  be<br \/>\nafforded  to the parties concerned for adducing evidence  in<br \/>\nthat  regard.  We make it clear that the claimants shall not<br \/>\nbe bothered during the remaining part of the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2387 of 2001 Appeal (civil) 2388 of 2001 Appeal (civil) 2389 of 2001 PETITIONER: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., SHIMLA Vs. RESPONDENT: KAMLA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-27T03:21:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-27T03:21:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3226,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001\",\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-27T03:21:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-27T03:21:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001","datePublished":"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-27T03:21:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001"},"wordCount":3226,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001","name":"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-27T03:21:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-shimla-vs-kamla-and-ors-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36335","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}