Insurance company must lead cogent evidence to prove driver’s minority and lack of valid license.

On November 16, 2004, the deceased, Nayanaben, was struck by a Maruti Car (bearing registration no. GJ-7-R-481) driven by Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner.

The deceased succumbed to her injuries. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Baroda, in MACP No. 66 of 2005, awarded the claimants Rs. 5,57,000/- with 9% interest.

The Appellant-Insurance Company challenged this award, primarily contending that the driver (Respondent No. 1) was a minor at the time of the accident and lacked a valid driving license.

During the appeal, the Appellant filed Civil Application No. 2410 of 2016 to produce a police statement where the driver purportedly admitted to being 17 years old.

1. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was a minor at the time of the accident and thereby disqualified from holding a valid license.

2. Whether the Appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from liability based on the alleged lack of a valid driving license.

The insurer must proves its defense regarding a breach of policy conditions according to the settled legal principle regarding the 'Burden of Proof' in insurance contracts and motor accident claims.

Statements made before the police during an investigation do not constitute conclusive proof of facts (such as age) in a civil proceeding.

A party is generally restricted from raising new factual defenses (like minority or lack of license) for the first time during final arguments without prior inclusion in the written statement.

The Court observed that the Insurance Company failed to raise the specific defenses of the driver's minority or the absence of a valid license in its original written statement at Exhibit-23.

The Court noted that the Appellant failed to examine any witness from the Regional Transport Office (RTO) to prove the license's invalidity.

The Appellant’s reliance on a police statement indicating the driver was 17 years old was rejected; the Court reasoned that such statements are not conclusive proof of age and do not meet the standard of "cogent and reliable evidence" required to sustain a defense.

The Insurance Company could not rely on the weaknesses of the other parties' cases to satisfy its own burden of proof.

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's award of Rs. 5,57,000/- and directed that any funds deposited with the Registry be transmitted to the lower Tribunal for realization by the claimants.

No order as to costs was made.