Jasbir @ Jagbir and another vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others

This appeal has been filed by the owner-driver disputing

the recovery rights given to the insurance company.

It is necessary to sketch the bare facts. An accident had

occurred on 26.02.2010. The deceased was coming on a motorcycle. A

tractor driven by appellant no.1 - Jasbir @ Jagbir came in a rash and

negligent manner and struck the motorcycle which led to his death.

Respondents no.1 & 2 contested the petition and pleaded

that the vehicle was insured and the driver had a valid and effective

driving licence.

Insurance company took the plea that the driver did not

have a valid and effective driving licence and there was a violation of

the terms and conditions of the policy.

The Tribunal ascertained the amount that was payable to

the claimants and on the issue of licence, it noted that there were three

driving licences i.e. Ex. R-3 that was produced by the owner-driver,

Ex. R-8 that was handed over by the driver to the police and one other

licence Ex. R-6 issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura. It noted

that the licence issued by Licensing Authority, Rohtak was found in the

police file and had been proved by the Ahlmad who brought the file of

the trial pending against the driver.

Faced with this situation, the argument on behalf of

respondents no.1 & 2 was that the owner had no knowledge that the

licence was fake and his duty was only to take a test drive and see

whether the driver had a licence and it is the insurance company who

has to pay the compensation.

The Tribunal had noted that had the owner seen the

licence as he had stated then he would also have seen that it was issued

by the Licensing Authority, Nagaland whereas he was a resident of

Haryana. The Tribunal also noted that the licence which was found

with the driver at the time of accident had been issued from Licensing

Authority, Rohtak, which was only issued to drive a scooter,

motorcycle and car and he did not have the licence to drive a tractor

whereas the licence issued by Licensing Authority, Mathura was found

to be fake. The Tribunal gave the recovery rights to the insurance

company.

An application for additional evidence was filed in this

appeal which was allowed and the appellants were permitted to place

on record the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.

I have heard the submissions of both the sides and have

gone through the record.

Counsel for the appellants had relied upon Pepsu Road

Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company 2013(4)

RCR (Civil) 273 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi

and others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 541 and had submitted that the owner

was only to satisfy that the driver had a driving licence and was not

expected to verify the genuineness of the driving licence and he had

stepped into the witness box to make that statement and the recovery

rights could not have been granted to the insurance company.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the

insurance company had relied upon judgments of this Court

Paramjeet Singh Vs. Satish Kumar and others FAO-99-2015, D.O.D.

31.03.2015, Kuljeet Singh Vs. Surinder Kaur and others FAO-1749-

2015, D.O.D. 24.03.2015, Suresh Kumar Vs. Cholamandalam Ms.

General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others FAO-1623-2014, D.O.D.

21.03.2014 and Bharat Kharabanda Vs. New India Assurance Co.

Ltd. and others CR-4355-2007, D.O.D. 16.4.2009 and urged that a

driver cannot hold two different licences and there is a prohibition

under Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and if any licence has

to be upgraded then it is the same licence which has to be submitted

under Section 11 of the Act. It was urged that the owner and driver

were represented by the same counsel and licence Ex. R-3 issued from

Nagaland was tendered in evidence by the counsel on 19.09.2011 and

later the owner stepped into the witness box to state that he had seen

the licence of Jagbir. It was urged that the driver had given another

licence to the police which is Ex. R-8 and had been issued by

Licensing Authority, Rohtak which was only for a scooter, motorcycle

and car and was issued on 16.03.2007 which was valid till 2027. It was

urged that there was another licence Ex. R-6 which had been issued

from Mathura and was issued on 30.05.2007 which was verified and

was found to be fake. It was contended that a person could not hold

more than one licence and the driver was a resident of Rohtak and there

is no assertion with regard to his employment or residence in Nagaland

and he had not explained as to how he came in possession of the

licence nor any supporting documents were tendered at the time of

applying for that licence. It was urged that the appellant-driver could

not explain the licence he had handed over to the police at the time of

his arrest and the appellants cannot be discharged only because the

owner had stepped into the witness box to say that he had taken a

driving test or had checked the driving licence. It was urged that in

authorities referred to by the appellants, the issue is not regarding two

licences.

The driver is a resident of Rohtak (Haryana). There was

no assertion that he had ever resided in Nagaland or he had got any

employment there. The licence issued from Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)

was found to be fake. The licence handed over to the police at the time

of the arrest is the third licence. The law does not permit a person to

hold more than one licence. The driver is a resident of Haryana and he

got the licence from Nagaland, it prima facie raises a doubt that the

licence is not genuine. The owner cannot be allowed to take shelter of

the fact that he merely looked at the licence and thought it to be

genuine. Something more than that was required to be done. Had he

made more enquiries, the truth would have come out. The entire

attempt of the owner-driver is to wriggle out from the liability and pass

it on the insurance company. There is a categorical finding recorded by

the Tribunal which is against the owner-driver and I have no reason to

take a different view. There is no merit in the appeal and is dismissed.