Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 414 (PNJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sube Singh

2014-02-20

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 30.9.1995, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (in short 'the Tribunal"), vide which, a sum of Rs.55,000/- has been awarded to the claimants, as compensation and the Insurance Company alongwith the driver and owner of the offending vehicle has been held liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company-appellant submits that the driving licence held by the driver was fake at the time of accident. He refers to Ex. R-3 and submits that as per the verification report from the office of District Transport Officer, Guwahati, driving licence No. 7654 of 89/A/SOL was never issued by that authority. Therefore, it is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. He seeks recovery rights. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that after taking driving test and satisfied with the driving licence held by the driver as genuine, he employed the driver. Therefore, the insured is not at fault. In support of his contentions, he cites Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company, 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 273. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully. 4. From the statement of the driver, it is clear that he never approached the licence issuing authority i.e. Guwahati or resided at Gurgaon, from where the licence was renewed. As per Ex. R-3, driving licence No. 7654 of 89/A/SOL was never issued by that authority. Thus, it is proved that the driver was neither the resident of Guwahati from where the original driving licence was issued, nor the resident of Gurgaon from where it was got renewed. Therefore, the subsequent renewal from Gurgaon will not validate the fake licence. There is nothing on record to suggest that the owner himself has to satisfy that the driver had valid driving licence. In the situation, this Court feels that authority cited by the counsel for the owner is distinguishable on facts. It is held that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle are held liable jointly and severally. The Insurance company shall have the liberty to recover the amount from the owner and driver jointly and severally. 5. It is held that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle are held liable jointly and severally. The Insurance company shall have the liberty to recover the amount from the owner and driver jointly and severally. 5. The list shows that there are cross-objections bearing No. 15-CII-1997, filed by the claimants. The cross-objections were burnt alongwith the appeal file. The appeal file has been reconstructed with the assistance of the counsel for the parties, but no copy of cross-objections is stated to be available with them. None appeared for the cross-objectors. This Court has considered the quantum of compensation, which appears to be reasonably granted to the claimants. This Court finds no ground to enhance the compensation. Thus, the cross-objection No. 15-CII-1997 is dismissed. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the above modification in the impugned Award. Appeal allowed.