Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Harpreet Kaur And Ors on 9 October, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5086-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on: 10.09.2025
Date of decision: 09.10.2025
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
..Appellant
Versus
HARPREET KAUR AND ORS
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate
for respondent No.6.
Mr. Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate
for respondent No.7.
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 17.11.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claimants were granted compensation of ₹17,71,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appellant-Insurance Company, being aggrieved thereby, has preferred the present appeal, assailing the award both on the quantum of compensation as determined as well as on the liability fastened upon it to satisfy the same.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.04.2016 at about 8:50 A.M. Narender Singh (deceased) along with his friend Bharat Jindal son of 1 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -2- Ramesh, resident of Bhikhi, District Mansa was going to petrol pump at Rattangarh to Budladha Road, on motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-31J-5780 for getting filled petrol after serving in Gaushala Rattangarh and Hardev Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of village Reyond Kalan, District Mansa was also going to petrol pump at Rattangarh to Budladha Road, on motorcycle bearing registration No.PB- 31G-8092 for getting filled petrol after serving in Gaushala Rattangarh and Narender Singh and his friend Bharat Jindal were going ahead of the motorcycle of said Hardev Singh and when they reached at Rattangarh Chowk, in the meantime, the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.HR-62-3765 driven by its driver Bogh Singh respondent No.1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, in careless and zig-zag manner, without adhering to the traffic rules, came from the opposite side and struck into the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-31J-5780 of deceased Narender Singh straightway and as a result of which, Narender Singh and his friend Bharat Jindal sustained multiple, grievous and serious injuries on their person and after the accident Narender Singh was being taken to CHC Ratia but the injuries sustained by him proved fatal and he succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Post mortem of the dead body of Narender Singh was conducted at General Hospital, Fatehabad. A case bearing FIR No.271 dated 29.04.2016 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Ratia against the driver of offending vehicle on the statement of Hardev Singh, being eye witness of the accident and respondent No.1 is still facing trial for causing this accident before the court of law at Fatehabad. As per the petitioners, the accident took place purely and exclusively due to rash and negligent driving of the driver i.e. Bogh Singh of the offending vehicle Bus bearing 2 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -3- registration No.HR-62-3765, under the authorization of its owner respondent No.2 and the said vehicle is insured with respondent No.3 and therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as prayed for.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondent No.6 and 7 (respondent No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal) appeared and contested the claim petition by filing written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether accident dated 29.04.2016 resulting in death of Narender Singh occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-62-3765 by respondent No.1?OPP
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation as prayed, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
3. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3
4. Relief.
5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants.
However, the liability to pay compensation was fastened upon the appellant-
Insurance Company.
3 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 :::
FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -4-
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. He contends that the Insurance Company, by leading cogent evidence, has duly established that no driving licence was ever issued in favour of the driver, Bogh Singh, and that the licence produced was forged and fabricated. In such circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. He further contends that the quantum of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is highly excessive and warrants substantial reduction. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-owner and driver submits that the Tribunal has rightly held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation, as the owner had duly verified the driving skills and the licence of the driver, which appeared genuine on the face of it. Hence, the Insurance Company alone has been rightly saddled with the liability to satisfy the award.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the case.
10. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-
"ISSUES NO.2 AND 3:
17. Both these issues being interlinked have been taken up together for discussion.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that prior to his death, Narender Singh was 38 years old and was cultivating the family agricultural land measuring 25 acres situated at village Reyond Khurd and he was also running the
4 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -5- milk dairy in the village and was also cultivating 10 acres of agricultural land by taking the same on contract basis and he was also running a Gym in the village being diploma holder in D.P.Ed. and thus, the deceased was earning ₹50,000/- per month from the above said sources and a sum of ₹1,00,000/- was spent on the transportation of dead body and on last rites ceremony and all the petitioners were totally dependent upon the earning of the deceased, so, suitable compensation be assessed.
19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that there is no cogent proof of age, occupation and income of the deceased.
20. Basically, only three facts need to be established by the petitioners for assessing compensation in the case of death; (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents.
21. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
22. PW1 Smt.Harpreet Kaur, widow of Narender Singh, has deposed that her husband was 38 years old at the time of his death. In the PMR Ex.P3, age of Narender Singh has been mentioned as 38 years. There is no other documentary proof with regard to the age of Narender Singh. As such, the age of Narender Singh, as mentioned in the PMR Ex.P3, is 5 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -6- assessed as 38 years for the purpose of this claim petition.
23. PW1 Smt.Harpreet Kaur, the widow of deceased Narender Singh has further deposed that her husband was cultivating the family agricultural land measuring 25 acres situated at village Reyond Khurd and her husband was also running the milk dairy in the village and was also cultivating 10 acres of agricultural land by taking the same on contract basis and her husband was running the Gym in the village being diploma holder in D.P.Ed. and was earning ₹50,000/- per month after deducting all the expenses. However, the petitioners have not produced any document on the file in order to show that deceased Narender Singh was cultivating 25 acres of family agricultural land, nor have produced any document on the file to show that deceased was cultivating the land of others by taking the same on contract bases. The petitioners have also not produced any document that the deceased was running any Gym in the village. Though the petitioners have produced on the file photocopies of mark sheets of Bachelor of Physical Education (Three Years Degree Course) as Mark A to Mark C and photocopy of mark sheet of B.E. Ed. (One Year Degree Course) as Mark D and photocopy of degree of Bachelor of Physical Education (Three Year Degree Course) as Mark E in order to show that deceased Narender Singh was degree holder in Bachelor of Physical Education, however, from these documents it cannot be said that deceased Narender Singh was running any Gym in the village and in the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to profession and income of 6 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -7- deceased Narender Singh, his income has to be assessed as a daily wager. The accident took place on 29.04.2016. Keeping in mind the minimum rate of wages notified by the State for a daily wager in the year 2016, income of the deceased is assessed as ₹9,000/- per month.
24. Since deceased Narender Singh was 38 years of age i.e. below 40 years of age. So, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. decided on 31.10.2017 reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 40% is to be added to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects. So, making an addition of ₹3,600/- per month, the monthly income of deceased Narender Singh comes to ₹12,600/- and the annual income works out to ₹1,51,200/-.
25. The petitioner No.1 being widow, petitioners No.2 and 3 being minor children and petitioners No.4 and 5 being the parents of the deceased have claimed compensation in this case. PW1 Smt.Harpreet Kaur (petitioner No.1) has further deposed that petitioners No.4 and 5 who are parents of deceased are old age parents and all the petitioners were entirely dependent on the earning of the deceased for food, shelter, education etc. and due to his sudden death, the lives of the petitioners have been completely ruined and they are bound to live in curse. Therefore, petitioner No.1 being widow, petitioners No.2 and 3 being minor children and petitioners No.4 and 5 being parents of the deceased, being dependents upon deceased Narender Singh, are entitled to receive 7 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -8- compensation on account of his death in the road side accident.
26. As discussed above, number of dependents in this case are five. As per the judgment Smt.Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 (SC), 1/4th income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his living and personal expenses in those cases where the number of dependents are between 4 to 6. Since annual income of deceased has been assessed as 1,51,200/-, he would be deemed ₹ to be spending 1/4th amount i.e. ₹37,800/- per annum on himself and if this amount of ₹37,800/- is deducted from his annual income, the dependency of petitioners comes to ₹1,13,400/- per annum.
27. As discussed above, the age of deceased Narender Singh has been assessed as 38 years. In Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), the Apex Court fixed multiplier of 15 for the age group of 36 to 40 years. Applying the multiplier of 15 to the annual dependency, the total death compensation works out to ₹17,01,000/-(₹1,13,400/- x 15).
28. No bills have been produced on the file with regard to expenses incurred on transportation of dead body and on last rites ceremony of deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are held entitled to ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses in view of case law National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra). Petitioner No.1 Smt.Harpreet Kaur is awarded an amount of ₹40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and the petitioners are further awarded an amount of ₹15,000/- on account of loss of estate in view of case law National Insurance 8 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -9- Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra). Thus, the petitioners are awarded a total compensation ₹17,71,000/- (₹17,01,000/- + ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses + ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium to widow petitioner No.1 + ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate) on account of death of Narender Singh in the road side accident.
29. Now the question comes as to who is liable to pay the amount of compensation.
30. Copy of driving licence of respondent No.1 has been placed on the file as Ex.R1, copy of registration certificate of the Bus has been placed on the file as Ex.R2, copy of insurance policy has been placed on the file as Ex.R3/Ex.R12, copy of route permit and copy of fitness certificate of the bus in question has been placed on the file as Ex.R4 and Ex.R5.
31. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company has submitted that driving licence of respondent No.1 is fake and from the evidence of RW1 Harbansh Clerk office of DTO Faridkot and RW2 Kuldeep Singh Junior Assistant RTA office, Hoshiarpur it is clear that driving licence No.1307/R/2002 Ex.R1 in the name of Bogh Singh was issued from 25.06.2002 to 24.06.2005 and the old number of this driving licence was 7942/R/96- 97 which was in the name of Ramesh Chand son of Tilak Raj and this DL is not in the name of Bogh Singh and driving licence Ex.R1 is shown to have been renewed by DTO Faridkot from 24.06.2014 to 21.06.2017 vide entry No.4736/FDK/RDL, however, the driving licence work has been computerized w.e.f. year 2012 whereas driving 9 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -10- licence Ex.R1 has been renewed manually but due to computerization of record, the manual record of entry No.4736/FDK/RDL valid from 24.06.2014 to 21.06.2017 is not available in the office of DTO, Faridkot and in this regard, he has placed reliance upon documents Ex.R6 to Ex.R10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company while placing reliance upon case laws National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut 2007(2) ACC 28(SC) , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vasdev Kalra and Ors. 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 1009 (P&H) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum & Ors. 2010(2) ACC 518 (SC), has argued that once the original driving licence of respondent No.1 is found to be fake, its subsequent renewal cannot make it genuine because the renewal thereof cannot cure the inherent defect and since respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, the insurance company- respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation.
32. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has argued that driving licence Ex.R1 of respondent No.1 is valid and effective driving licence and evidence of RW1 Harbansh and RW2 Kuldeep Singh cannot be relied upon and even otherwise if this Tribunal reaches to the conclusion that driving licence Ex.R1 of respondent No.1 is not valid and effective, even then insurance company-respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation and not the owner of the Bus in question. He has place reliance upon case laws Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 10 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -11- 273 SC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Dass and Others 2013(28) RCR (Civil) 487 (Delhi) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Geeta Bhat & Ors. 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 44 (SC). 33. In the present case, driving licence of respondent No.1 has been placed on the file as Ex.R1 which is bearing No.1307/REN dated 25.06.2002 and was valid upto 24.06.2005 whereby respondent No.1 was authorized to drive LTV/HGV/HPV only which was issued by Licensing Authority, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) and said driving licence was renewed from 11.12.2008 upto 23.06.2011 vide No.5380 by Licensing Authority, Mansa, thereafter, the same was renewed upto 22.06.2014 vide No.9170 by District Transport Officer, Mansa and thereafter, the same was renewed from 24.06.2014 to 21.06.2017 vide entry No.4736/RDL by District Transport Officer, Faridkot. The accident in question took place on 29.04.2016. Insurance company- espondent No.3 has examined RW1 Harbansh Clerk from the office of DTO Faridkot, who has deposed that D.L. work has been computerized w.e.f. year 2012 whereas DL Ex.R1 has been renewed manually but due to computerization, the manual record of entry No.4736/RDL valid from 24.06.2014 to 21.06.2017 is not available in their office and he has also proved the report of verification of this DL as Ex.R6 which is in Punjabi Language and its Hindi translation has been proved as Ex.R7. RW2 Kuldeep Singh, Junior Assistant, RTA Office, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) who brought the original record regarding renewal of driving licence No.1307/R/2002 and original driving licence 11 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -12- register pertaining to old DL No.7942 deposed that the old number of this driving licence was 7942/R/96-97 and he has proved photocopy of original driving licence renewal register as Ex.R8 and in Ex.R8 entry No.1307 is in the name of Bogh Singh respondent No.1 and the old No.7942/R/96- 97 is also mentioned therein. RW2 Kuldeep Singh further deposed that old DL No.7942 was in the name of Ramesh Chand son of Tilak Raj and not in the name of Bogh Singh and he has proved the photocopy of the original driving licence register as Ex.R9 and a perusal of Ex.R9 reveals that entry No.7942 is in the name of Ramesh Chand son of Tilak Raj and in Ex.R9 old driving licence No.4439/93-94 is also mentioned. However, the insurance company-respondent No.3 has not led evidence with regard to old driving licence No.4439/93-94 mentioned in Ex.R9 and in the absence of evidence with regard to old driving licence No.4439/93-94 mentioned in Ex.R9, it cannot be said in whose name the old driving licence No.4439/93- 4 is entered and thus, it cannot be said that the original licence No.4439/93- 4 was fake or not and resultantly, driving licence Ex.R1 cannot be said to be a fake driving licence.
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case law United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Lehru and Others 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 278 has observed that the insurance company cannot be permitted to avoid its liability only on the ground that the persons driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not duly licensed. It was further held that the willful breach of the conditions of the policy should be established. It was further held that it was not 12 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -13- expected of the employer to verify the genuineness of a driving licence from the issuing authority at the time of employment. The employer needs to only test the capacity of the driver and if after such test, he has been appointed, there cannot be any liability on the employer. The situation would be different when the employer was told that the driving licence of its employee is fake or false and yet the employer not taking appropriate action to get the same duly verified from the issuing authority. The relevant paragraphs of the above said judgment are extracted as under:-
"18. Now let us consider Section 149(2). Reliance has been placed on Section 149(2)
(a)(ii). As seen in order to avoid liability under this provision it must be shown that there is a "breach". As held in Skandia and Sohan Lal Passi cases the breach must be on part of the insured. We are in full agreement with that. To hold otherwise would lead to absurd results. Just to take an example, suppose a vehicle is stolen. Whilst it is being driven by the thief there is an accident. The thief is caught and it is ascertained that he had no licence. Can the Insurance Company disown liability? The answer has to be an emphatic "No". To hold otherwise would be to negate the very purpose of compulsory insurance. The injured or relatives of the person killed in the accident may find that the decree obtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer.
It is for this reason that the Legislature, in its 13 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -14- wisdom, has made insurance, at least third party insurance, compulsory. The aim and purpose being that an insurance company would be available to pay. The business of the company is insurance. In all businesses there is an element of risk. All persons carrying on business must take risks associated with that business. Thus it is equitable that the business which is run for making profits also bears the risk associated with it. At the same time innocent parties must not be made to suffer or loss. These provisions meet these requirements. We are thus in agreement with what is laid down in aforementioned cases viz that in order to avoid liability it is not sufficient to show that the person driving at the time of accident was not duly licensed. The insurance company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured."
"20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If 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 a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to
14 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -15- them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). The Insurance Company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia, Sohan Lal Passi and Kamla cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view."
35. From the registration certificate Ex.R2 of the Bus in question it is clear that it is registered in the name of The Fatehabad Malwa Express Cooperative Society i.e. respondent No.2. On the date of accident, the said bus was being driven by Bogh Singh respondent No.1 under the employment of respondent No.2 and thus, a presumption can be taken that the above said Cooperative Society through its authorized signatory before employing respondent No.1 as a driver must have satisfied that the driver had a valid driving licence and in the process of employment, the driver must have been put to a driving test and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the owner is at fault in having employed a person whose licence has been alleged 15 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -16- to be fake by the insurance company and in such circumstances, insurance company respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the owner i.e. respondent No.2. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case law Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company (supra) has held that "when an owner hires a driver he had to satisfy that driver had valid driving licence and had competency to drive. Owner is not expected to go to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority. If such a driver causes accident, then insurer and not the insured will be liable.
36. As such even if it would have been found that the driving licence of respondent No.1 is fake, then also the insurance company would be liable to indemnify the insured.
37. Thus, I hold that respondent No.1 being the driver, respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.
38. Therefore, issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and issue No.3 is decided against respondent No.3."
11. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the entire evidence, both oral as well as documentary, and has rightly reached the conclusion that the appellant-
Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award passed in favour of the claimant, there being no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
16 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 :::
FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -17-
12. The record reveals that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, Ex.R1, was duly placed on file. The appellant-Insurance Company examined RW-1 Harbansh, Clerk from the office of the DTO, to support its plea that although the said licence was renewed from time to time, the original licence had never been issued in the name of respondent No.1, Bogh Singh. On this premise, it was urged that on the date of the accident the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence and consequently there was a breach of the policy conditions absolving the insurer of its liability.
13. Having given anxious consideration to the testimony of RW-1, I find no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company. RW-1 himself admitted in his evidence that the work relating to issuance and renewal of driving licences had been computerized with effect from the year 2012. At the same time, he stated that Ex.R1 had been renewed manually, but the corresponding manual record was not available on account of the computerization process. The mere absence of a manual record cannot, by itself, lead to the inference that the licence in question was forged or fabricated. It must be borne in mind that the burden of proving a willful breach under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act lies squarely upon the insurer. In the instant case, the insurer has miserably failed to discharge this burden.
14. Even otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that the original licence had not been issued in the name of respondent No.1 and that subsequent renewals were effected in his name, and that he was employed by the owner and caused the accident while driving the offending vehicle, the law on the subject is well settled. The record is bereft of any material to 17 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -18- indicate that the owner had knowledge of any defect or infirmity in the driving licence of respondent No.1, or that he had deliberately permitted him to drive despite being conscious of such irregularity. In the absence of such evidence, no element of willful breach can be fastened upon the insured.
15. At this stage, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v.
Lehru and Others, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 278, wherein the Apex Court categorically held that the owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills of the driver and satisfy himself that the licence produced by the driver appears genuine on the face of it; the owner is not required to run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the licence before employing the driver. Once these conditions are met, there can be no breach of the policy attributable to the insured.
16. The same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 217, where it was observed that if a driver produces a licence which appears genuine, and the employer is satisfied about the competence of the driver, the owner cannot be held liable even if the licence is later found to be fake. In such a situation, the liability to indemnify continues to rest upon the insurer, unless it is proved that the insured was aware of the licence being fake and still permitted the driver to operate the vehicle.
17. Coming to the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant/insurance company that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased, the same is devoid of merit and warrants no interference.
18 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 :::
FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -19-
18. The record discloses that the claimants produced the mark sheets of the Bachelor of Physical Education (Three-Year Degree Course) (Marks A-C), the mark sheet of B.Ed. (One-Year Degree Course) (Mark D), and the degree certificate of Bachelor of Physical Education (Mark E), thereby establishing that the deceased, Narender Singh, was a graduate in Physical Education. Though the claimants asserted that the deceased was running a gym, no documentary proof in that regard was filed.
19. Be that as it may, having regard to the educational qualifications of the deceased, it would not be appropriate to treat him as a daily wager. At the same time, it is well settled that minimum wages cannot be determined on the basis of qualifications alone, but with reference to the nature of vocation pursued. In this backdrop, the assessment of the income of the deceased made by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted.
20. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 435, is that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal enjoy sufficient latitude in awarding "just compensation" and are not fettered by rigid formulae or strict evidentiary standards as in civil suits. Interference at the appellate stage is warranted only when the award is manifestly excessive, arbitrary, or contrary to settled principles.
21. In the present case, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are well-founded and call for no interference.
22. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, holding respondent No.1 (driver), respondent No.2 (owner), and respondent No.3 (insurer) jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award, with the insurer being bound to indemnify the 19 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 ::: FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -20- insured, is based on a correct appreciation of evidence and sound application of settled law. The award suffers from no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
23. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be refunded to them.
24. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
09.10.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
20 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 :::