https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199948 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. en-us Thu, 10 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:37:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199948 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199948