Unlicensed driver breach under motor policy defeats indemnity where insured's contrary claims are unproved and false.

Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 requires an insurer to satisfy third-party judgments, but the insurer may avoid liability where there is a breach of a specified policy condition, including use of the vehicle by an unlicensed driver. The earlier precedent was distinguished because, unlike that case, there was no proof that the vehicle had been entrusted to a duly licensed driver, and the insured's claim that the vehicle had been sold was unproved while the assertion that a licensed driver was driving was found false. On those facts, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner and the breach defence succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the insurer was liable to indemnify the owner and satisfy the award when the accident was caused by an unlicensed driver, and whether the insured had committed a breach of the policy condition.

Analysis: Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 requires the insurer to satisfy judgments in respect of third party risks, but sub-section (2) permits the insurer to avoid liability where there is a breach of a specified policy condition. One such condition is that the vehicle must not be driven by a person who is not duly licensed. The earlier ruling relied upon by the appellants was distinguished because, in that case, the insured had entrusted the vehicle to a licensed driver and the accident occurred only because another person meddled with it without the insured's fault. Here, the insured's own stand that he had sold the vehicle was unproved, and his further plea that a licensed driver was driving at the relevant time was found false. There was no material to show that the vehicle had been entrusted to a licensed driver on the date of the accident.

Conclusion: The insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner, and the defence of breach of the policy condition succeeded.

---