United Indian Insurance Company Ltd vs Tarlok Chand And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. The vehicle in question was driven by respondent No.2 and insured by the appellant-company. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its award dated 31.03.2014 awarded compensation of Rs.1,02,500/- alongwith up-to-date interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition by respondent No.1. Liability to pay compensation amount was fastened upon the insurance company. Feeling aggrieved, insurance company has preferred the instant appeal.

The only contention putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle and therefore liability to pay the compensation amount could not have been fastened upon the appellant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

In my considered opinion, this appeal deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons:-

4(a). Respondent No.2 had placed on record a copy of his driving licence Ext.RW-1/A. In terms of this document, licence No.17466 REN dated 3.3.11 was issued to respondent No.2. It was valid till 2.3.2014. The accident in question had occurred on 06.07.2011. The owner of the vehicle stepped into the witness box as RW/3 and inter alia stated that he had seen and checked the driving licence produced by respondent No.2 before employing him as his driver. That he had employed respondent No.2 as his driver in July 2009.

4(b). The insurance company had examined Kuldeep Singh a Junior Assistant of District Transport Office, Hoshiarpur as RW-4. He admitted that driving licence in question for Heavy Transport Vehicle was issued by the office of DTO Hoshiarpur in the name of respondent No.2. He also stated that licence was renewed previously in the year 2002 and thereafter in 2006. That the original licence was issued in the name of one Joginder Singh for Light Transport Vehicle and Heavy Good Vehicle. Kuldeep Singh RW-4 also admitted that DTO Hoshiarpur had renewed the driving lience in favour of respondent No.2 twice and that the licence was renewed only after verifying the old record.

The plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the licence produced by respondent No.2 was fake, cannot be accepted. RW-4 admitted that it could not be said that Ext. RW-1/A the driving licence was not genuine. He though stated that the driving licence with same number was issued in the year 2002 in the name of one Joginder Singh but later on it was further renewed in the name of respondent No.2. Licence issued in the name of Joginder Singh was for Light Transport Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle. Licence issued in favour of respondent No.2 was for Heavy Transport Vehicle. It was for the appellant to prove that the driving licence- Ext. RW-1/A issued in favour of respondent No.2 was fake. RW-4 admitted the issuance of licence in question in favour of respondent No.2 for driving Heavy Transport Vehicle. He also admitted that the licence was renewed only after verifying the old record. He also stated that Ext. RW-1/A driving licence in question could not be called a fake licence.

4(c). Even otherwise, it is settled position that owner of the vehicle while employing the driver is to take reasonable care to ensure that he/she is employing a person, who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that for verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. [Re (2004) 3 SCC 297, titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh & Others]. No other point was urged.

In view of the above I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award dated 31.03.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una (HP).

Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.