IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.1/2021 Date of Decision: 01st September, 2025. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Kamla Devi and Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Chandan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 13.11.2020, whereby an application preferred by the present petitioner to examine the Licensing Clerk from Licensing Authority Ukhrul, Manipur through interrogatories, has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the records appended along with the petition. 3. The purpose of filing the present application for examining the Licensing Clerk concerned, is to demonstrate that the licence placed on record by present respondent No.5 i.e. respondent No.1 before the learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 trial Court, is fake. The present respondent No.5 is the owner of the vehicle. The sum and substance of the case of the present petitioner is that since the driver of the vehicle in question, who has died did not possess a valid driving licence, hence, there was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy and therefore, no liability could be fastened on the present petitioner i.e. Insurance Company in the case at hand. 4. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the specific pleadings of the present petitioner filed in this respect while responding to the petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, filed by the present respondents No.1 to 4. In this respect, preliminary objection No.3 from the response filed to the main claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “3. That the petition deserves dismissal against the answering respondent as the vehicle No.HP.17C.2559 at the time of so called alleged incident was being plied by Respondent No.1 through deceased in breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy as the deceased was not holder of valid and effecting driving licence issued by competent authority authorizing him to drive vehicle on the date of accident. In view of the 3 intentional breach of policy conditions, the same has resulted in exoneration of the answering respondent from its contractual liability to indemnify the owner. It is prime conditions in every insurance policy that the vehicle shall always be plied through a driver holding valid and effecting driving licence qua the vehicle and the period and any breach of the said condition, results in the exoneration of the insurer from its contractual liability to indemnify the owner.” 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the trial Court by placing reliance upon United India Insurance Company Limited V/s Seema Devi, 2005 LawSuit (HP) 38 = 2006 (108) FLR 467 = 2006 ACJ 1357 = 2005 (2) Shim LC 442 (HP), dismissed the present application. 6. In my considered view, the breach of an insurance policy can either be committed by the insured or the Insurance Company. It can never be committed by a party not a signatory to the insurance contract. At the time of engaging the services of a driver, all that the owner i.e. respondent No.5, in the case at hand, is to see is the driving licence. The genuineness of the same has not to be gone into by the owner. He cannot be expected to go to the Registration and Licensing Authority (RLA) to verify the same. 4 7. Hence, when a fundamental breach is alleged by the Insurance Company in the case of a fake/invalid driving licence, the Insurance Company is required to plead and prove that the owner was aware of the invalidity of the driving licence and despite being aware of the same, he still engaged the services of the driver. It is only in such a case that a fundamental breach can be alleged to have been committed by the owner of the vehicle. 8. From the specific pleadings which have been reproduced herein above filed to the main petition, it is evident that petitioner i.e. Insurance Company has not taken such a plea in the case at hand. One can only prove what one has pleaded. No proof beyond pleadings is required to be led. Hence, in the absence of pleadings to the effect that deceased driver was engaged by the owner (Respondent No.5) despite being aware of the invalidity of the licence, I am fully in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court. Further reliance placed on 2005 (2) SLC 442(HP), United India Insurance Company Limited V/s Seema Devi by the Insurance Company cannot be faulted with. 9. In view of above stated, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order, therefore, the present petition is 5 dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22.09.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 01st September, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)