Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 730 (MP)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. KAMAL

2004-09-02

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2004
SHANTANU KEMKAR, J. ( 1 ) MRS. Amrit ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant. ( 2 ) HEARD on the question of admission. ( 3 ) THIS is an appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award passed on 26. 6. 2002 by learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul in Claim case No. 66 of 2001. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that since the licence held by the driver of the offending bus was fake, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. It is further submitted that even if the liability to pay the compensation is saddled, the appellant insurance company ought to have been given the right to recover the same from the vehicle owner. ( 5 ) SUPREME Court in case of United india Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 acj 611 (SC), has held that where prior to hiring the driver, the owner satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and was driving competently, there would be no breach of section 149 (2) (a) (ii) and the insurer would not be absolved of liability. If ultimately the licence is found to be fake, the insurer would continue to be liable unless he proves that the owner was aware of the fact and had still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle. Even in such a case the insurer would be liable to the third party but may recover the amount from the insured. ( 6 ) IN the present case, Narayan, respondent No. 3, NAW 1, the owner of the vehicle, in his deposition has stated that after perusal of his licence which was containing the seal of R. T. O. , Nagpur and signature of the competent authority and after being satisfied about it he employed respondent No. 2 as driver. ( 7 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal on appreciation of aforesaid evidence held that the owner satisfied himself about the licence produced by the driver and in rebuttal there is no evidence on record to hold that owner was having knowledge of the fact that the driver is possessing a fake licence and he still permitted him to drive the vehicle. ( 7 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal on appreciation of aforesaid evidence held that the owner satisfied himself about the licence produced by the driver and in rebuttal there is no evidence on record to hold that owner was having knowledge of the fact that the driver is possessing a fake licence and he still permitted him to drive the vehicle. ( 8 ) IN this view, I am of the opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC ). Thus, the appeal being devoid of any merits, the same is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed. .