Supreme Court: Whether Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation if motor accident is done by driver who is minor child?

Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits driving of a vehicle by any person under the age of eighteen years in any public place. Section 5 of the Act imposes a statutory responsibility upon the owners of the motor vehicles not to cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 to drive the vehicle. {Para 15}

16. The vehicle in question admittedly was being driven by Karan Arora who was aged about fifteen years. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, in our opinion, rightly held that Karan Arora did not hold any valid licence on the date of accident, namely 5.2.1997.

17. The learned single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court did not put unto themselves a correct question of law. They proceeded on a wrong premise that it was for the Insurance Company to prove breach of conditions of the contract of insurance.

18. The High Court did not advert to itself the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus misdirected itself in law.

19. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj   MANU/SC/0685/2008 : AIR2008SC1408 wherein upon taking into consideration a large number of decisions, it was held that the Insurance Company was not liable.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2008 

Decided On: 24.09.2008

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Citation: 2008 INSC 1087,MANU/SC/8090/2008,2009 AIR SC 24.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions not constitute sufficient ground to deny benefit of coverage of insurance to third parties

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors.   MANU/SC/0021/2004 : AIR2004SC1531 this Court held:

88. Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder there to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description.

89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in Sub-section (2) of the said section. {Para 21}

22. It was furthermore observed:

90. We have construed and determined the scope of Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2008 

Decided On: 24.09.2008

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Citation: 2008 INSC 1087,MANU/SC/8090/2008,2009 AIR SC 24.

Print Page

Madhya Pradesh HC: Whether the owner of vehicle can take the defence that minor child drove the vehicle without his knowledge?

The contention of the owner that the vehicle was driven by his minor brother without his consent or knowledge cannot be accepted as the owner of a vehicle must take adequate care to ensure that only a duly licensed and competent person drives the vehicle.

8. It is often said that responsibility is the silent shadow that follows every act of freedom. In the case of the young, whose impulses race faster than their understanding, that shadow must be guided by the hands of their elders. Thus, upon the elder rests the solemn duty to restrain the minor from venturing into paths not yet meant for their age particularly, the act of driving a vehicle, which demands both maturity and lawful permission. The elder must serve as both guardian and guide, ensuring that the thrill of youth does not overrun the boundaries of safety and law. The minor's safety, and the safety of others, depends upon the vigilance of the elder who understands that care is the truest expression of responsibility.

9. In the present case, both the owner and the driver are real brother. It is inconceivable that the owner was unaware of his brother's use of the vehicle. Even assuming otherwise, the duty to keep the vehicle safe and not accessible to an unlicensed person lies squarely on the owner. Hence, the owner cannot escape liability by merely stating lack of consent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)

Misc. Appeal No. 376 of 2007

Decided On: 10.11.2025

Branch Manager United India Insu. Comp. Vs. Maneesh Kumar Singrore and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Himanshu Joshi, J.

Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:57157,MANU/MP/3600/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Madhya Pradesh HC: Negligently Allowing Minor To Drive Without Valid License Is Breach Of Insurance Policy

 In the present case, both the owner and the driver are real brother. It is inconceivable that the owner was unaware of his brother's use of the vehicle. Even assuming otherwise, the duty to keep the vehicle safe and not accessible to an unlicensed person lies squarely on the owner. Hence, the owner cannot escape liability by merely stating lack of consent. {Para 9}

10. Therefore, it is held that there was a fundamental breach of the policy condition by the owner in permitting or negligently allowing a minor to drive the vehicle.

11. The Insurance Company has raised a valid defence that the vehicle was being driven by a person who was not duly licensed. The breach being fundamental and directly contributing to the cause of the accident, the insurer is entitled to be exonerated from liability to indemnify the claimants.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)

Misc. Appeal No. 376 of 2007

Decided On: 10.11.2025

Branch Manager United India Insu. Comp. Vs. Maneesh Kumar Singrore and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Himanshu Joshi, J.

Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:57157,MANU/MP/3600/2025

Print Page