Abhishek Nagpal vs Karamjit Kaur and Others

R.P. Nagrath, J.—The instant appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle Truck bearing No. HR-68-2845 seeking to set aside the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity ''Tribunal'') whereby the Insurance Company has been granted recovery rights against the appellant. The accident occurred on 30.09.2009. Deceased Jatinder Singh was pillion rider on motorcycle driven by one Gurdev. The motorcyclist were hit by the speeding Truck coming from the opposite direction. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 3,14,000/- as compensation to mother of the deceased. Learned Tribunal found that driver was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident of the Truck and granted right of recovery to Insurance Company-respondent No. 3.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company and I have perused the award passed by the Tribunal.

It has been found as a matter of fact that the licence produced on record was valid from 8.11.1994 to 9.11.1997 which was lastly renewed from 20.11.2009 to 19.11.2012. It has also been found that there was no stamp of renewal for the period from 12.11.2003 up to 19.11.2009 and this finding of fact has not assailed by learned counsel for the appellant.

Learned counsel, however, referred to the statement made by the appellant as owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal as RW-1 (Annexure A-2). In the affidavit of the appellant tendered as Ex. RW 1/A before the Tribunal, the stand of the appellant is that he employed respondent No. 3 as driver of the vehicle after satisfying himself about the licence held by the driver. He verified the licence which was issued by the Licensing Authority, Solan, H.P. He also checked the stamp of the Licensing Authority, Solan, H.P. as well as the renewal by the Licensing Authority, Panchkula and had obtained a photostat copy of the driving licence of respondent No. 3 to ensure about the latest renewal of the licence from 20.11.2009 to 19.11.2012 from the Licensing Authority, Panchkula. It was thus, stated that the appellant to all precautions while employing respondent No. 4 as driver and also took driving test and thus, could not doubt the driving skills of respondent No. 4.

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this. Court in National Insurance Company v. Chand Kaur and others, 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 49 that in such case even if the licence is not renewed subsequently by the driver the Insurance Company cannot enforce the award against the owner. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot support the contention because the accident took place on 30.09.2009 and according to the own saying of the appellant as RW-1 in his affidavit as well as in the cross-examination that he employed respondent No. 4 as driver just about three or four months before the accident i.e. sometimes in the month of May 2009. On the said date the licence held by the respondent No. 4 was not bearing any stamp of validity right from the year 2003. The appellant could take help of the principles held by this Court in Chand Kaur (supra) only in case the licence was valid or renewed on the date the driver was employed and also could take advantage even if the licence was not renewed subsequently up to the date of accident. In the facts of instant case I hold that the Tribunal rightly granted the recovery rights to the Insurance Company, due to breach of the conditions of Insurance Policy. No merit in the instant appeal.

Dismissed.