Bharat Subedi and Others vs Rajbir @ Raju and Another

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal by the driver and owner of Swaraj Majda bearing registration No. HR-38-H-1680 against the award dated 9.1.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which the liability to pay compensation has been held to be of the appellants, exonerating the insurer of the same. Rajbir @ Raju, the injured claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for the injuries he suffered in a roadside accident that took place on 28.6.2006. While allowing the said claim petition in a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-, the liability is held to be joint and several of respondent No. 1, 2 and 2-A, the appellants before this court and the claim petition against respondent No. 3, the insurer was dismissed.

Driving licence of respondent No. 1 was tendered in evidence as Ex. P11. It bore number 4916/F/2000 and appeared to be issued by Licencing Authority, Faridabad. Respondent No. 3, the insurer examined Gulshan, a clerk from the Licencing Authority, Faridabad as RW-2 who had stated that licence No. 4916/F/2000 had been issued by the Licencing Authority, Faridabad in the name of Girish Chand and not in the name of Bharat Subedi, respondent No. 1.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the driving licence of Bharat Subedi is there on the record and it authorizes him to drive a light motor vehicle. According to him, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the vehicle he was driving was not a light motor vehicle. According to him, learned Tribunal has been wrong in holding that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured because respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and the owner has, thus, violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted, on the other hand, that the driving licence is clearly proved by Gulshan [RW-2] to be a fake licence. According to her, the driving licence of Bharat Subedi bears No. 4916/F/2000 and appears to have been issued by the Licencing Authority, Faridabad. According to her, as per Gulshan [RW-2], the licence with the aforesaid number had been issued in the name of Girish Chand and not in the name of Bharat Subedi. According to her, this statement of Gulshan [RW-2] itself proves that the driving licence held by Bharat Subedi is a fake licence.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has further submitted that the vehicle driven by respondent No. 1, Bharat Subedi bearing registration No. HR-38-H-1680 is a public carrier. She drew attention of this court to Ex. R1, the national permit for this vehicle issued by District Transport Officer, Faridabad. According to her, in case the vehicle is a public transport vehicle, the driving licence to be valid should have endorsement thereon authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle which is not there in this case. According to her, for these two reasons, the decision of learned Tribunal is unexceptional.

Bharat Subedi had been holding a driving licence which is Ex. P11 on record. On the side of the claimant, this document was proved by an Ahlmad of the court. However, the insurer examined a licencing clerk from whose statement it becomes abundantly clear that the licence in question was never issued in the name of Bharat Subedi and it was issued in the name of Girish Chand and that the licence produced is a fake document. Further, the vehicle is proved to be a public carrier, a transport vehicle by Ex. R1 and there is no endorsement on the driving licence authorizing the holder to drive a transport vehicle. In the absence of that endorsement, the licence holder would not be authorized to drive a transport vehicle and, therefore, it is a clear case where the insured had handed over his vehicle to a person who was not holding a driving licence authorizing him to drive it. Consequently, no fault can be found with the finding of learned Tribunal on this question. Affirming the finding of learned Tribunal on this question, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.