Authority: High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

Order Date: 22 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – United India Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer); Respondents – 1) Smti. Neris Kharmalki (claimant, mother of the deceased), 2) Smti. Riola Nongrum (owner of the vehicle), 3) Shri Phrangstone Nongspun (driver of the vehicle).
  • Accident Details: On 26 Oct 2014 at ~4.30 pm, at Mawkathien, a Bolero Pick‑Up bearing registration No. ML‑05‑K‑8865, driven by Shri Phrangstone Nongspun, struck Iadalin Kharmalki (granddaughter of the claimant) from behind and ran over her. She was taken to Nazareth Hospital and died the same day.
  • Police Investigation: FIR lodged by UBC 1111 Shri Bishnu Chettri at Madanrting Police Station. Investigation concluded the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving by the driver.
  • Claim Proceedings: The claimant filed a claim before the Member Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Shillong, seeking compensation for death of her daughter. The vehicle owner (Respondent 2) and driver (Respondent 3) filed written statements denying liability. The insurer (Respondent 4) argued the claim was not maintainable and that the driver did not possess any driving licence at the time of the accident.
  • Issues Framed by MACT:

1. Whether the death was caused by the accident involving the vehicle insured by United India Insurance.

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and, if so, from whom.

3. The quantum of relief.

  • Tribunal Findings: After hearing the claimant’s four witnesses (including herself) and noting no evidence from the opposite parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹ 18,84,400 plus simple interest at 8 % p.a. from the date of filing. Liability was placed on the insurer, with a direction to deposit the amount within 30 days of receipt of the judgment copy.
  • Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal:
  • The insurer contended it should not be liable because the driver had no valid driving licence (the investigating officer testified the driver did not produce any licence and stated he did not possess a valid licence).
  • Cited authorities: Pappu & Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba (2018) – defence available when vehicle driven by unauthorised person or driver without valid licence; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) – insurer not liable if driver unlicensed; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Chand (1997) – insurer exonerated when vehicle handed to unlicensed driver; New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla (2001) – “pay & recover” principle when policy condition breached; Rukmani & Ors v. New India Assurance (1998) – burden of proof on insurer not discharged without conclusive licence evidence.
  • The insurer also pointed out that it had already paid ₹ 50,000 as “no‑fault liability,” which should be deducted from the award.
  • Respondent’s Counter‑Arguments: Counsel for the claimant (Mr. S. Pandit) argued that the driver’s lack of a valid licence, not the absolute absence of a licence, was the issue, and that the insurer must prove the breach of the licence condition, which it had failed to do.
  • Court’s Reasoning:

1. The central factual issue is whether the driver possessed a valid licence. The investigating officer’s statement indicated the driver did not produce a licence and said he did not have a valid licence, leaving ambiguity about the existence of any licence.

2. The court noted that the owner failed to produce any licence evidence or identify the driver as authorised, satisfying the condition for the insurer’s defence under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. Following the Supreme Court’s observations in Swaran Singh (para 110 iii), the insurer must prove the driver’s licence breach; the evidence presented was insufficient.

4. Consequently, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation but may invoke the “pay‑and‑recover” mechanism against the vehicle owner, as endorsed in New India Assurance (2001).

5. The court also accepted the appellant’s claim that the previously paid ₹ 50,000 should be set off against the award.

  • Final Outcome:
  • The appeal is partially allowed. The quantum of award remains ₹ 18,34,000 (₹ 18,84,400 minus ₹ 50,000), together with interest as previously ordered.
  • United India Insurance Company Ltd. must pay the reduced sum within 30 days of this order.
  • The insurer is entitled to recover the paid amount from the vehicle owner (Respondent 2) under the “pay‑and‑recover” provision.
  • No costs were mentioned; the order disposes of the appeal.

Topics: Insurance Liability, Motor Accident Compensation