Insurer is liable where the driver possesses a valid PSV endorsement at the time of accident.

On February 6, 2017, several individuals (the claimants) were traveling in a bus (bearing registration No. CG 17 F 0314) to attend a wedding.

During the return journey, the bus, driven by Respondent No. 2, overturned due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in grievous injuries and permanent disability to the claimants.

The claimants sought compensation from the driver, the owner (Respondent No. 3), and the insurer (the Appellant).

The Appellant-Insurance Company challenged the Claims Tribunal's award, asserting that the driver lacked the mandatory "PSVBUS" (Public Service Vehicle) endorsement on his license at the time of the accident.

The Appellant relied on testimony from an RTO official suggesting the endorsement was renewed only on April 13, 2017.

Whether the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving license with the requisite endorsement to operate a Public Service Vehicle on the date of the accident.

The court applied the statutory requirements for operating transport and public service vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which necessitate specific endorsements on a driving license for such vehicles.

It followed the principle that the insurer bears the burden of proving a breach of policy conditions, such as the lack of a valid license.

Furthermore, the court prioritized corroborated documentary evidence (Exhibit D-3) over inconsistent oral testimony to determine the validity of a license.

The court evaluated the evidence regarding the driver’s licensing status.

The Insurance Company’s witness (an RTO Assistant) testified that the endorsement was renewed post-accident in April 2017.

However, the court found that Exhibit D-03, a document proved by the vehicle owner, explicitly established that the driver held a valid PSVBUS endorsement for the period from February 10, 2016, to April 12, 2020.

The court emphasized that the Insurance Company failed to cross-examine the owner to discredit Exhibit D-03 or suggest that the renewal occurred subsequent to the accident.

Since the document proved the driver was authorized to operate the vehicle on the date of the accident (February 6, 2017), the court determined that the Insurance Company failed to establish a breach of the policy.

The findings of the Claims Tribunal were upheld as correct findings of fact.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed all the appeals (MAC Nos. 1595, 1596, 1598, and 1599 of 2019) and condoned the delays in filing.

No costs were awarded.