Burden of Proving Absence of Driving Licence Lies on Insurer Through Cogent Evidence Beyond Mere Charge-Sheet

On April 24, 2006, the deceased, Ramabhai Ghelabhai Ahir, was standing near a Jeep when he was struck by a luxury bus (No. GJ-17-W-330) driven rashly and at excessive speed by opponent No. 1.

The deceased succumbed to his injuries.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Godhra, awarded the claimants Rs. 6,37,000/- with 9% interest, fastening liability on the appellant Insurance Company.

The appellant challenged this award primarily on the grounds of a breach of insurance conditions regarding the driver’s license.

1. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from its liability because the driver of the offending vehicle allegedly lacked a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the mere filing of a charge-sheet under Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act is sufficient to prove the absence of a valid driving license.

The Court applied the settled legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the Insurance Company to establish a breach of policy conditions through cogent evidence to avoid liability.

The Court specifically looked at Section 3 (necessity for driving license) and Section 181 (driving in contravention of Section 3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court followed the doctrine that an insurer must lead affirmative evidence—such as examining the driver or RTO officials—rather than relying solely on police investigation documents like a charge-sheet to prove the lack of a license.

The Insurance Company argued that because the driver was charge-sheeted under Sections 3 and 181 of the M.V. Act, it was evident he lacked a valid license.

The Court observed that the appellant failed to lead any substantive evidence to prove that the charges in the charge-sheet were actually established in a court of law.

The Court noted that the Insurance Company did not examine the driver or any official from the Regional Transport Office (RTO) to confirm the licensing status.

The Court reasoned that a charge-sheet is a mere allegation/investigative report and does not satisfy the legal requirement for the insurer to prove its defense. Consequently, in the absence of cogent evidence, the Tribunal’s decision to fasten liability on the insurer was legally sound.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s award. The Court directed any statutory amounts deposited with the Registry to be transmitted to the Tribunal and ordered the Record & Proceedings (R&P) to be sent back forthwith.