Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1908 (PNJ)

Chandi Ram v. Suman Devi

2021-12-10

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2021
Judgment Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. :-The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar, while allowing theclaim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,on account of death of late Sh. Lalit has permitted the insurance company torecover the amount from owner and driver of the offending vehicle, whichwas found to be driven rashly and negligently. 2.The driver of the bus assails correctness of the findings of theTribunal with respect to grant of the recovery rights to insurance companyagainst the appellant. The appellant in order to prove his driving licenceexamined Sumit Nahar, RW3 an official from the Regional TransportAuthority Office, Jhansi, from where the alleged driving licence is stated tohave been issued. Sh. Sumit Nahar failed to prove that the driving licencewas issued by the office of RTA, Jhansi. He stated that some part of theregister, where the particulars with respect to issuance of various otherdriving licence are noted is damaged. However, he failed to draw theattention of the Court with regard to issuance of a valid licence in favour ofthe appellant. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has permitted theInsurance Company to recover the amount from the owner and driver. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and withher able assistance perused the paper book. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant contends that when thedriving licence allegedly issued by the RTA, Jhansi, has been renewed, thelicence should be deemed to have been original, particularly, when theofficials have stated that they renewed the licence only after verifying thecorrectness of issuance of original licence. She relies upon the judgmentpassed by the Division Bench in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs DalbirSingh, LPA No.66 of 1989, decided on 09.09.1997. She further contendsthat no recovery rights could be ordered in case the appellant failed to provethat he was having a valid driving licence. She relies upon judgment passedin Jondhan Kalan, Coop. Transport Society Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi andors., FAO No.4365 of 2015 (O&M), decided on 06.12.2019. 5.The appellant is a driver of the offending vehicle. As alreadynoticed Sumit Nahar, Junior Assistant Clerk from the office of RegionalTransport Authority, Jhansi has appeared in evidence. He has proved thecommunication that the alleged driving licence has not been issued by hisoffice. He has also stated that the driving licence produced by the appellantwas never issued by the RTA office, Jhansi. As alreadynoticed Sumit Nahar, Junior Assistant Clerk from the office of RegionalTransport Authority, Jhansi has appeared in evidence. He has proved thecommunication that the alleged driving licence has not been issued by hisoffice. He has also stated that the driving licence produced by the appellantwas never issued by the RTA office, Jhansi. The witness during crossexamination has stated that he has brought the original record of RTA office,Jhansi and at that time, there was only one register. The attention of thewitness was drawn to certain damaged pages and cuttings in the register.However, the appellant failed to prove that he was issued a driving licence inthe year 1982, as claimed. 6.The argument of learned counsel that the licence has beenrenewed does not advance the case of the appellant. Renewal of the drivinglicence does not result in the validation of a fake driving licence. Thestatement of the witness that the driving licence is renewed after verifying theoriginal, is not sufficient to prove that the original driving licence was validparticularly when Sumit Nahar official from RTA, Jhansi has categoricallystated that the licence was never issued by RTA, Jhansi. This Court hascarefully read the judgment passed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).The Division Bench upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.In that case, the register incorporating the entry of the issuance of the drivinglicence was not produced in the Court. Thus, the Court held that theInsurance Company has failed to produce evidence to the effect that thelicence was forged. The aforesaid judgment is in the facts of the case and isnot applicable. 7.As regards second argument of learned counsel it may be notedthat the judgment passed in Jondhan Kalan, Coop. Transport Society Ltd.(supra)is in the context of liability of the owner particularly when heappears in the witness box and states that he had checked the driving licenceof the driver and had taken a driving test, in order to satisfy the driving skillsof the driver. In those circumstances, the Court has held that the owner is notliable because he has knowingly and intentionally not violated the terms ofthe policy. In Jondhan Kalan, Coop. Transport Society Ltd. (supra),theCourt relies upon the judgment passed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 . The judgment passed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt is in the different context. 8.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere in theimpugned award is made out. 9.Dismissed. In Jondhan Kalan, Coop. Transport Society Ltd. (supra),theCourt relies upon the judgment passed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 . The judgment passed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt is in the different context. 8.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere in theimpugned award is made out. 9.Dismissed. 10.All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are alsodisposed of.