An insurer cannot avoid liability for licence mismatch absent proof that it caused the accident.

Rama Kanta Deb died after being struck by motorcycle No. AS-10-C-9023.

His widow and children filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimganj.

The Tribunal awarded ₹5,73,000 with interest at 7% per annum against the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

The owner and insurer had contested liability, but neither adduced evidence before the Tribunal.

In appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer argued that the motorcycle was being driven by a person holding a licence only for an LMV and not for a motorcycle, thereby constituting a breach of the insurance policy.

The insurer also sought, under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, to produce a driving-licence verification report at the appellate stage.

Whether the insurer should be permitted to produce the driving-licence verification report as additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC?

Whether the driver’s alleged possession of a licence only for an LMV, while driving a motorcycle, constituted a breach sufficient to exonerate the insurer from liability?

Whether the insurer was required to establish that the absence of a motorcycle licence was the main or contributory cause of the accident?

The Court applied Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, under which additional evidence may be admitted only where the lower court improperly refused evidence, the party establishes despite due diligence that the evidence could not previously be produced, or the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause; the provision cannot be used to fill evidentiary gaps caused by a party’s negligence.

The Court relied on Sections 3 and 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the principles stated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, that a driver must possess an effective licence for the relevant class of vehicle, but the insurer cannot avoid liability for a technical licensing breach unless it establishes that the breach was the main or contributory cause of the accident or had a causal nexus with it.

The insurer’s explanation that its counsel had misplaced the verification report did not establish due diligence, particularly because the insurer had been given an opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal but had adduced none.

The appellate application therefore sought to cure an evidentiary deficiency rather than address an inherent lacuna in the record.

Further, even if the verification report had been admitted, it would only have shown that the driver held an LMV licence and lacked a motorcycle endorsement; it would not have established that this licensing defect caused or contributed to the accident.

Applying Swaran Singh, the Court held that the alleged licensing breach, without proof of causal connection with the accident, was insufficient to exonerate the insurer.

The appeal was also dismissed, as the insurer failed to prove that the driver’s lack of a motorcycle licence was the main or contributory cause of the accident.

The insurer was directed to deposit the Tribunal’s award of ₹5,73,000 with applicable interest before the High Court Registry within six weeks, after which the amount was to be disbursed to the claimants upon verification.