FAO-6152-2016 (O&M [229] New India Amarjit Ka Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] [2] by the learn [3] insured veh time of ac the Insuran (Exhibit R3 includes the [4] Section 9 o resident of has been is (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-6152 Date of De India Assurance Company Limited versus Kaur and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate an for the appellant-Insurance Co Mr. Bharat, Advocate for Mr. K for respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The insurance company is in a The solitary ground raised is e learned Tribunal on Issue No.4. Counsel for the appellant ha ed vehicle was not having a valid an of accident. However, the Tribunal nsurance Company. The Tribunal ibit R3) issued on 17.02.2009 which w des the date of the accident i.e. 03.02.2 Mr. Gupta, counsel for the ap on 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198 of Ambala City in the State of Har een issued by the State of Nagaland. T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 6152-2016 (O&M) of Decision : 24.02.2026 …Appellant ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN and Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocat ce Company. Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate is in appeal. ed is with respect to findings recorde ant has argued that the driver of th lid and effective driving license at th ibunal has answered Issue No.4 again bunal has relied upon driving licens hich was valid up to 16.09.2015, whic 3.02.2015. the appellant, has placed reliance upo 988 to submit that the driver was of Haryana, whereas the driving licens aland. The said issue has already bee 1 vocate ocate ecorded r of the e at the against license , which ce upon r was a license dy been RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.27 11:11 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-6152-2016 (O&M deliberated Assurance observed as (O&M) erated upon by this Court in FAO rance Company Limited versus Poo rved as under:- “5. Appellant-insuranc issue No.3 claiming that the d Ex.R-3 being not on smart ca Counsel for the appellant is no evidence was led by the insuranc was fake. Merely for the reason by State of Nagaland, the same license. This Court in FAO No Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ra 05.02.2025 dealt with the issue a “9. The provision use ‘ordinarily resides’ and of Ex.R-2, it is evident th of Bathinda. However, t was not carrying on appellant-the insurer, contract. Likewise, there licensee does not fall appellant who avers an insurance. 10. Onus was upon the driving licence was unl led by the insurance co Reliance upon observa Singh (supra) is mispla from the licencing autho record and it is thereafte hold that the licence was 11. The plea raised is evidence led by the appe Tribunal.” FAO-4605-2017 titled as ‘New Ind Pooja and others’, wherein it wa rance company has assailing finding o he driving license produced on reco t card, is not a valid driving license is not in a position to dispute that n rance company to prove that the licen ason that the driving license was issu same cannot be held to be a fake drivi No.2379 of 2013 titled as ‘Nation s. Ravinder Kaur and others’ decided sue and observed as under:- uses two different expressions i and ‘carries on business’. From perusa nt that the driver was ordinarily reside er, there is no evidence to show that on business in Nagaland. It is t er, who is claiming breach of t there is no evidence to show that case fall within Section 9(1)(ii). It is t s and alleges breach of conditions n the appellant-insurer to prove that t s unlawfully renewed. No evidence w e company to discharge the said onu servations made in the case of Kulje splaced. In the said case, licence cle uthority was examined. He produced t eafter that the Court invoke Section 9 was not lawfully renewed. d is not based upon any evidence. T appellant remained discrepant before t 2 India it was ing on record icense. hat no license issued riving tional ded on s i.e. erusal sident hat he is the of the ase of is the ons of hat the e was onus. uljeet clerk ed the n 9 to e. The ore the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.27 11:11 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-6152-2016 (O&M [5] evidence b (O&M) 6. Same is the view FAO3596-2017 titled as ‘New In Smt. Veena Devi and others’ 3244-2016 titled as ‘Ombir and Company Ltd. and others’ decid there is no evidence to prove th can be made to following obser National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. SCC 297:- “(ii) An insurer is enti petition filed under Sec Motor Vehicles Act, 19 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said (iii) The breach of poli the driver or invalid contained in sub-section proved to have been com liability by the insurer. M licence or disqualificati relevant time, are not in Insurer against either t avoid its liability towar prove that the insured w exercise reasonable ca condition of the policy licensed driver or one w the relevant time. (iv) Insurance compan their liability must not on raised in the said pro "breach" on the part of of proof wherefor would Counsel for the appellant do nce brought on record by the appell iew formulated by Coordinate Bench ew India Assurance Company Ltd. v ’ decided on 07.12.2022 and FAO and another vs. SBI General Insuran decided on 22.02.2019. Apart therefro e that insured was negligent. Referen bservations made by Supreme Court . v. Swaran Singh reported as (2004) s entitled to raise a defence in a clai Section 163-A or Section 166 of t t, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Sectio said Act. policy condition e.g. disqualification lid driving licence of the driver, ction (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to n committed by the insured for avoidin . Mere absence, fake or invalid drivin ication of the driver for driving at t t in themselves defences available to t er the insured or the third parties. T owards the insured, the insurer has ed was guilty of negligence and failed e care in the matter of fulfilling t licy regarding use of vehicles by a du ne who was not disqualified to drive panies, however, with a view to avo ot only establish the available defence( proceedings but must also establi t of the owner of the vehicle, the burd ould be on them.” ant does not dispute that there is n appellant-Insurance Company to prov 3 nch in td. vs. FAO- urance efrom, erence urt in 004) 3 claim of the ection tion of er, as s to be oiding riving at the to the es. To has to iled to g the a duly rive at avoid nce(s) stablish urden e is no o prove RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.27 11:11 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-6152-2016 (O&M that the driv license was evidence. [6] dismissed. [7] disposed of 24.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) he driver does not fall within the ambi se was invalid. Thus, the argument ra Finding no merit in the present issed. All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable e ambit of Section 9 of the Act and thu ent raised can’t be accepted for lack o present appeal, the same is ordered to b neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 4 and thus r lack of ed to be stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.27 11:11 I agree to specified portions of this document