United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Narise Nagamani & 6 others

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2347 of 2003 (For being mentioned) JUDGMENT: The matter has been posted ‘for being mentioned’ in view of the decision reported in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS[1], in which the principle laid in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANDAR MADHAV TAMBE[2] was dealt with, which was not referred to in the judgment.

In SWARAN SINGH’s case (supra 1) by a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, MANDAR MADHAV TAMBE’s (supra 2) was distinguished as in MANDAR MADHAV TAMBE’s case (supra 2), there was an exclusion clause in the insurance policy wherein it was made clear that the insurance company in the event of an accident would be liable only if the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid driving license or a permanent driving license other than a learner’s license. Therefore, the Three Judge Bench distinguished MANDAR MADHAV TAMBE’s case (supra 2) on the facts of that case and had also incidentally observed that the earlier case does not create any binding precedent.

The judgment rendered in this C.M.A.No.2347 of 2003 on 28.01.2011 was firstly excluding the liability of the insurer on the ground of want of negligence which is a sine qua non for an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that conclusion still holds good. It was only as an alternative that the driver having only a learner’s license was also referred to and it is, therefore, clarified that apart from the contention about the learner’s license of the driver, the non-liability of the insurer was primarily on the basis of want of negligence. With clarification, the result of the appeal is reaffirmed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 1st February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2347 of 2003 (For being mentioned) Date: 1st February, 2011 KL [1] (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297 [2] 1996 ACJ 253