Negligently Allowing Minor To Drive Without Valid License Is Breach Of Insurance Policy: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an owner negligently allowing or permitting a minor to drive the motor vehicle without a valid driving license leads to a fundamental breach of the insurance policy. 

In doing so, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi emphasized that it is the solemn duty of the elders to ensure that the minors are restrained from venturing into paths not yet meant for their age, particularly the act of driving a vehicle, which demands both maturity and lawful permission.

These observations were made in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the order of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 76,000/- to the claimant/respondent No. 1 on account of a road accident. The insurance company was directed to indemnify the claimant, being the insurer of the offending vehicle.

The accident occurred on October 7, 2024 when the claimant met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no 2 while driving the motorcycle. The accident resulted in serious injuries to the claimant on his right hand and leg, leading to his hospitalization.

The claimant, therefore, filed a claim petition where respondents 2 and 3, who are brothers, were ex parte. Respondent no 2 was the driver of the offending vehicle, which was registered in the name of respondent no 3. 

The insurance company argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that it was being driven by respondent no 2, who did not have a valid driving license on the date of the accident. It was argued that the respondent no 3/owner, cannot escape his liability to pay the compensation by merely saying that he did not give consent to his minor brother to drive the vehicle. 

The court observed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no 2/the minor brother.

"no person below the prescribed age can drive a motor vehicle, and the owner of such vehicle is under a statutory duty to ensure that the vehicle is not driven by a person who does not hold a valid licence", the bench emphasized while citing Section 3,4 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 

The court rejected the contention of the owner that the vehicle was being driven without his consent or knowledge, as the owner must take adequate care to ensure only competent persons with a valid driving license drive such a vehicle.

"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 bench highlighted. 

The court highlighted that the elders must serve as guardians and guides who ensure that the thrill of youth does not overrun the boundaries of safety and law and that the minor's safety and the safety of others are not compromised. 

In the present case, the court noted that it was the duty of respondent no 3 to keep the vehicle safe and not accessible to an unlicensed person, and therefore, he cannot escape his liability by merely stating lack of consent. 

"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... 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", the court observed. 

Accordingly, the court held that the liability to pay respondent no 1/claimnt lies squarely on respondents no 2 and 3. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to deposit the awarded amount with liberty to recover the same from respondents 2 and 3 as per law. 

Case Title: Branch Manager, United Insurance v Maneesh Kumar Singrore [MA 376 of 2007]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 245

For Appellant: Advocate DN Shukla 

Click here to read/download the Order