Mere production of license verification reports is insufficient to discharge the insurer's burden of proof without formal testimony.

On July 24, 2016, the deceased, Abhilashbhai, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle (GJ-05-ML-8169) when it collided with an offending container (NL-01-N-0582) driven in a rash and negligent manner.

The deceased succumbed to his injuries. The claimants filed M.A.C.P. No. 10 of 2017, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajpipla, awarded Rs. 10,22,068/- with 9% interest.

The Tribunal apportioned liability 70% to the owner/insurer of the container and 30% to the owner/insurer of the motorcycle.

The Appellant (Insurer of the container) challenged the award, contending it is not liable because the driver of the container lacked a valid driving license.

1. Whether the Appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the evidence produced by the Insurance Company (License Verification Reports) was sufficient to prove a breach of policy conditions in the absence of oral testimony from the investigating officer or the licensing authority.

The court applied the settled principle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the burden of proof in "breach of policy" defenses.

To avoid liability under Section 149 of the Act, the Insurer must prove that there was a "willful breach" of the policy condition regarding a valid driving license. Mere production of documentary evidence (verification reports) without examining the author of the document or a witness from the Licensing Authority does not constitute "cogent evidence".

The Court examined the appellant's primary defense based on Exhibits 90 and 92—License Verification Reports from the District Transport Officer, Tuensang, Nagaland, and the company's internal investigator respectively.

The Court noted that while these documents alleged the license was not issued by the concerned authority, the Insurance Company failed to examine its Investigating Officer, Mr. Ashok Kr. Dutta, or any official from the Regional Transport Office (RTO) to prove the contents of these reports.

Applying the rules of evidence, the Court held that in the absence of such testimony, the defense of an "invalid license" remained unproven. Consequently, the Tribunal’s decision to hold the insurers jointly and severally liable was found to be without error.

The Court found no merit in the submissions and confirmed the Tribunal’s judgment and award. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire awarded amount to the claimants after due verification and deduction of any deficit court fees.