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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS