LAXMAN SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two Cross Appeals against a judgment dated 04.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby it awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,90,000/- for the death of Jai Singh Sharma, which occurred in a motor accident on 26.06.2003.

(2.) THE grievance of the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as "owner") in MAC. APP. No.504/2009 being owner of Truck No.HR-55-6608 is that his driver Pappu (the third Respondent herein) did possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident; thus no recovery rights could have been granted to the Insurer (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) against him. In MAC. APP. No.96/2012 preferred by Respondents No.2 to 2D (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimants"), the challenge is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that the deceaseds future prospects were not taken into consideration.

(3.) THE facts of Bharat Kharbanda (supra) are not attracted to the instant case. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, it was held by the Honble Supreme court that mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. It was observed that Insurer must establish a willful violation of breach of policy condition. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338, it was held that if at the time of hiring a driver the driver produces a driving licence, which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has, in fact, been issued by the competent authority or not. In this case not only that the Appellant (the owner) says that the driver showed him the licence Mark ,,A, but the said licence has been found to be valid on investigation by the first Respondent (the Insurer). THE Appellant could not have been fastened with the liability to reimburse the amount paid by the Insurer to the Claimants. In this view of matter MAC. APP. No.504/2009 must succeed.