Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 959 (HP)

Hans Raj v. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd.

2017-08-24

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. In this petition judgment dated 9.8.2016 has been sought to be reviewed on the grounds inter alia that the findings to recover the awarded amount from the petitioners (appellants in FAO (MVA) No.14/2015) are contrary to the facts of the case and also the law laid down by the apex Court by way of various judicial pronouncements. The driving licence Ex.P-5 was issued in favour of the petitioner-appellant No.2 Subhash Chand by the competent authority not only to drive the light motor vehicles, but also heavy goods vehicles and heavy transport vehicles throughout India. While admitting that the driving licence to drive transport vehicle under Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is required to be issued for three years, it is canvassed that the lapse, if any, on the part of the Transport Officer to issue the licence Ex.P-5 for six years, the petitioners-appellants cannot be made to suffer for that. 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate learned counsel representing respondent No.1-insurance Company, while inviting the attention of this Court to the provisions contained under Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, has strenuously contended that the driving licence Ex.P-5 having been issued for a period over three years itself demonstrates that the same was not issued to drive the category of vehicles i.e. truck, a heavy transport vehicle, involved in the accident. Mr. Thakur, has also relied upon the law laid down by this Court and also the Apex Court qua this aspect of the matter. 3. On analyzing the rival submissions and also the legal position brought to the notice of this Court during the course of arguments, it would not be improper to conclude that a valid and effective driving licence to drive the category of vehicle i.e. truck involved in the accident, in the case in hand should be issued by the competent authority only for a period of three years. In the case in hand the District Transport Officer, however, has issued the driving licence Ex.P-5 for a period over three years i.e. for six years. The driving licence, however, has been issued to drive the vehicles i.e. light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy transport vehicles. 4. In the case in hand the District Transport Officer, however, has issued the driving licence Ex.P-5 for a period over three years i.e. for six years. The driving licence, however, has been issued to drive the vehicles i.e. light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy transport vehicles. 4. Now if coming to the law laid by the Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Lehru and Others, (2003) 3, SCC 338, it is held that when an owner hire a driver to drive the vehicle, he is required to check and satisfy himself that the driver is holding a driving licence. If the driving licence is produced by the driver, which, on the fact of it, looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would take the test of the driver and if finds competent to drive the vehicle, to hire him as driver. It has further been observed in this judgment that the Insurance Company expects the owners to make enquiries with RTO’s spread all over the country, would be a strange situation. 5. The apex Court while taking similar view of the matter in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, (2013) 10 SCC, 217 has further held that the owner cannot be expected to go to the extent to verify the genuineness of the licence from Licencing Authority before hiring the services of the driver. 6. No doubt, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajo Devi versus Kailash Giri Bus Service Society and others, 2010(1) ACJ 572 has held that as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the licence to drive a transport vehicle is required to be issued only for a period of three years. As stated here in above, there is no quarrel qua such legal requirement, however, in view of the ratio of the judgment of the apex Court in the judgments referred supra, the owner is not required to go into the question of validity of the driving licence and if satisfied that the person being engaged as driver holding a licence and competent to drive the vehicle is sufficient to hire his services as driver. The facts in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Angad Kol and others, 2009 (2) ACJ, 1411 are distinguishable from the case in hand as in that case the disputed driving licence was issued only to drive light motor vehicles whereas in the case in hand the driving licence Ex.P-5, besides light motor vehicles, has also been issued for driving heavy goods vehicles and heavy transport vehicles. 7. Another contention of Mr. Thakur, learned counsel that in cross-appeal FAO (MVA) No. 404/2014 filed by the Insurance Company-respondent No.1, the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has been reduced and that the award so passed has attained finality, also does not find favour for the reason that in that appeal filed by the Insurance Company the dispute as adjudicated upon was qua the quantum of compensation and not qua the liability to pay the same. Otherwise also, the observations hereinabove in this judgment are only for the purpose of the decision of this petition and on review, the parties on both sides will be heard qua this aspect of the matter afresh. 8. In view of the discussion here in above, in the event of the judgment sought to be reviewed is allowed to remain inforce, the appellants-petitioners, are likely to suffer with irreparable loss and injury and in that event miscarriage of justice is also likely to be caused to both of them. This petition is accordingly allowed and the judgment dated 9.8.2016 passed by this Court in the main appeal is recalled and the appeal to be heard afresh on merits. 9. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. The appeal be listed for hearing before appropriate Bench as per Roster of Boards.