Insurance company's liability upheld upon proof of valid driving licence following limited remand for additional evidence.

On March 3, 2004, Mohammad Iqbal Chandmiyan Shaikh (the deceased) was struck and killed by a truck (registration No. PB-06-B-7699) driven by respondent No. 1 while performing RTO checks

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad [Rural], awarded Rs. 7,86,000/- with 7.5% interest to the claimants via judgment dated April 4, 2013

The appellant Insurance Company challenged the award primarily on the ground that the driver possessed a fake license or no license

During the pendency of the appeal, the driver (respondent No. 1) filed for additional evidence under Civil Application No. 1 of 2018, leading the High Court to remit the limited issue of license validity to the Tribunal for a finding on September 16, 2025

1. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle (Respondent No. 1) held a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation in light of the findings regarding the license.

The court applied the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the liability of insurance providers and the requirement for valid licensure.

Specifically, it relied on the procedural rules for the production of additional evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure (Order XLI Rule 27 principles implied) to allow the remand for a factual finding on the driver's license status

The core principle applied is that if a driver holds a valid and effective license at the time of the accident, the insurer cannot escape liability under the "breach of policy conditions" clause.

The High Court’s decision hinged on the compliance report submitted by the Tribunal following the remand.

The Tribunal, after recording additional evidence, issued a finding on March 16, 2026, stating that respondent No. 1 was indeed holding a valid driving license to drive both Light Transport Vehicles (LTV) and Heavy Transport Vehicles (HTV) on the date of the accident (March 3, 2004)

Since the sole ground for the Insurance Company's appeal—the allegation of a fake or non-existent license—was factually disproven by the Tribunal's subsequent inquiry, the High Court determined that the basis for the appeal no longer existed

The Court disposed of the appeal and upheld the original judgment and award passed by the Tribunal

It directed the Tribunal to disburse the compensation amount to the claimants after due verification and deduction of any deficit court fees, and ordered the transmission of any statutory amounts and records back to the Tribunal

No order as to costs was made