Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1012 (PNJ)

Gian Singh v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2013-08-06

Vijender Singh Malik

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- In the above mentioned four appeals brought by the owners, the only question involved is regarding the genuineness of the driving licence. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mansa (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 6.8.2009 has found the renewal of the driving licence to be genuine, but has found the original licence to be fake and has held that the vehicle was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence under issue No.3. In view of this finding on issue No. 4, learned Tribunal held respondent No. 3, the insurer as liable to satisfy the award but authorized it to recover the amount of compensation so paid to the claimants from respondents No. 2(i) and 2 (ii), the owners of truck no. PB-31B-5457. Since the scope of controversy in these appeals is limited, the rival averments are not required to be noticed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the renewal of the driving licence is genuine and valid. According to him, the owner of the vehicle while employing a driver is not required to make roving enquiry to find genuineness of the driving licence. According to him, the driver was found to be knowing driving and renewal of his driving licence was found to be genuine and, therefore, the owner in handing over the vehicle to the driver did not commit any violation of the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, the owner is not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the insurer on the latter’s paying the same to the claimants. He has cited before me a number of decisions on the point. The first decision cited by him is Naresh Kumar Vs. Ram Dass and others 2011 ACJ 1611 where the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a fake driving licence. Observing that forgery committed by him was in such a subtle manner that even Licensing Authority could not detect it and renewed the licence, it was held that if Licensing Authority could not detect the forgery, how owner, a layman, could have detected it. 3. The next case cited before me is a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Vs. 3. The next case cited before me is a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Vs. Lehru and Ors., [2008(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1464] : 2003(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 278 where it is laid down that the insurance company can recover from the owner only if it is proved that the vehicle was knowingly and intentionally handed over to a driver not holding a valid driving licence to drive such vehicle. It was further held that if the driving licence held by the driver appeared to be valid on the face of it, the owner was not expected to make a roving enquiry to find out its validity. Another case in this regard is United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shanti Devi and others 2008 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 541 where it is laid down that the insurance company is not only to prove the fact that the driving licence was fake but has to prove the fact that the owner had the knowledge of the fact that the licence was fake. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the original driving licence is sought to be proved as fake from a report [Mark R3]. According to him, this document is not proved on the record as a report from Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh) and, therefore, it cannot be considered for taking the view that the original licence is fake. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, the insurer has submitted on the other hand that under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to make enquiry and no strict provision of the Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code are applicable to such enquiry. According to him, once a driving licence is proved to be fake, no valid renewal can make it valid. 6. Learned Tribunal has fallen in error in placing reliance on Mark R3. If the document stood validly proved, the Tribunal should have taken it as exhibit R3. It was taken as Mark R3 as it was not proved as per the legal requirement. There is none coming on the record from the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh) to prove that the report [Mark R3] was made by him or his office and is true to the record maintained by his office. It was taken as Mark R3 as it was not proved as per the legal requirement. There is none coming on the record from the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh) to prove that the report [Mark R3] was made by him or his office and is true to the record maintained by his office. So, Mark R3 could not be taken as sufficient to prove that the original licence, the renewal of which is proved to be valid, is fake. 7. Moreover, the owner of the vehicle is not an expert. The driving licence as it stood before the Tribunal is validly renewed. It could be said from the same that any person could take it to be a valid licence. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Lehru’s case [supra], I have no hesitation in holding that the owner could not have detected any defect in the driving licence and it cannot be held that by handing over the vehicle to Jarnail Singh, the owners committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the insurance company has clearly failed to prove breach of any condition of the insurance policy by the insured. Consequently, the appeals are accepted and the grant of right to respondent No.1, the insurer to recover the amount of compensation paid to claimants from the owners of the offending vehicle is set-aside. ---------0.B.S.0------------