Driving Licences - Motor Accident Compensation Cases - Apex court held that an Insurance Company in order to succeed in its defence pleas touching the driving licence issues must: a) Firstly establish that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. b) Secondly, the breach which was committed by the insured was so fundamental as is found to have contributed to the cause of the accident.Even upon establishing the above conditions by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal.- 2015 S.C.(2004)msklawreports

Apex Court while dealing with wide spectrum of
defence pleas of Insurance Companies basing on the deficiencies in driving
licences.held that
 Such deficiencies are:
a)      Fake driving licenses of the driver.
b)      Driver not having licence whatsoever.
c)      No renewal of driving licence as on the date of accident.
d)      License granted for one class or description of vehicle but vehicle
involved in accident was of different class or description.
e)      Driver holding only a learners licence.
    The Apex Court after discussing various issues involved in this regard,
held that an Insurance Company in order to succeed in its defence pleas
touching the driving licence issues must:
a)      Firstly establish that the insured was guilty of negligence and
failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the
condition of the policy regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed
driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant
time.
b)      Secondly, the breach which was committed by the insured was so
fundamental as is found to have contributed to the cause of the
accident.

Even upon establishing the above conditions by the Insurance Company, the
Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured
for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay
to the third party under the award of the Tribunal.- 2015 S.C.(2004)msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS