Insurer must strictly prove absence of driving license to be exonerated from liability.

The appellant insurance company challenged the award dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Raipur, in Claim Case No. 796/2015

The claim arose from a motor accident involving an offending vehicle driven by Rohit Kumar Verma, which resulted in the death of the pillion rider, Pawan Kumar Verma

The driver, Rohit Kumar Verma, also died in the accident

The MACT allowed the claim and fastened liability on the insurance company

The appellant contended that the driver lacked a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, thereby violating policy conditions

Whether the insurance company discharged its burden of proof to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license so as to be exonerated from liability

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Section 173 regarding appeals

It further relied on the evidentiary principle concerning the burden of proof, which dictates that the insurer must affirmatively prove a breach of policy conditions—such as the absence of a valid driving license—to successfully plead exoneration from the liability to pay compensation to third parties

The court evaluated the testimonies of three witnesses produced by the appellant to prove the lack of a license. DW-1 (Data Entry Operator) testified that an online search of the "Sarthi" program found no license in the driver's name

DW-2 (Head Constable) stated that no license was seized during the criminal investigation

DW-3 (Law Officer) testified that their internal inquiry yielded no license

The Court found this evidence insufficient, noting that the mere absence of a record in one database or the failure of the police to seize a document does not conclusively prove the non-existence of a valid license

The Court reasoned that the insurance company failed to take "effective steps" or "more efforts" to establish this fact and thus failed to fully discharge its legal liability to prove the breach

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it and upheld the Tribunal’s decision to fasten liability on the insurance company