Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Asha And Others on 14 March, 2014
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
FAO No.6997 of 2011 (O&M) with -1-
FAO No.7257 of 2011 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.6997 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 14, 2014.
Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Appellant(s)
Versus
Asha and others ...Respondent(s)
FAO No.7257 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March , 2014.
Sirdari ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Asha and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No
Present: Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
for the appellants in FAO No.6997 of 2011
& for respondent no.5 in FAO No.7257 of 2011.
Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for respondent no.6 in FAO No.6997of 2011
& for the appellant in FAO No.7257 of 2011.
*****
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. These are two appeals arising out of the same award dated 01.10.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. One appeal has been preferred by the insurance company seeking discharge of its liability. The second appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle seeking his discharge and payment of compensation by the insurance company.
Sunil 2014.03.21 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.6997 of 2011 (O&M) with -2- FAO No.7257 of 2011 (O&M)
2. The issue involved is short but before deliberating on the issue raised it is necessary to refer to few facts. Vinod Kumar met with an accident on 03.02.2010 while going from Gurgaon to Faridabad. He was 42 years old and was a commission agent. His monthly income was stated to be Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal accepted the income that was shown in the ITR for the year 2006-07 and assessed the annual income at Rs.1,62,640/- and after making a cut of 1/4th towards personal expenses calculated the compensation at Rs.17,38,000/-. The insurance company had examined a Clerk of the Licencing Department to prove that the licence was fake. The owner-driver moved an application for additional evidence and produced another driving licence. The Tribunal held that a person could not hold two licences at the same time and it was an offence. It was noted that respondent no.2 owner of the vehicle was the father of respondent no.1 and refused to accept the plea that the father was not aware that the licence of his son was fake. It rejected the second licence and allowed recovery rights to the insurance company.
3. The insurance company is aggrieved and the sole argument put forth on their behalf is that a person cannot hold two driving licences and the first licence which was produced at the time of accident was found to be fake, therefore, their liability should be discharged.
4. The contention of the other appellant was that the second licence had not been verified and it is presumed to be valid and when one licence verified by the insurance company is found to be fake, it cannot be held that the driver was holding two licences. Reliance was placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balraj & others 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 898, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nation Insurance Co. 2013(4) RCR(Civil) 273 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & others 2004(2) RCR(Civil) 114. Sunil 2014.03.21 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.6997 of 2011 (O&M) with -3- FAO No.7257 of 2011 (O&M)
5. I have gone through the authorities referred to on behalf of appellant Sardari. The issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra) and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) did not relate to the issue of two licences neither this aspect was examined in Balraj's case (supra). In the present case, there was one driving licence that was produced by the driver at the time of the accident and the other was produced during the pendency of the claim petition by moving an application for additional evidence. It is settled that the insurance company is not liable under the policy in respect of any liability occurred while the insured vehicle is being driven by a person who was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident. Respondent nos.1 & 2 had tendered the certified copy the driving licence Ex.RX and had closed their evidence which was later found to be fake. Ex.RX was the licence which the driver held at the time of the accident and the genuineness of which had been determined. In this context, Section 6(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is relevant and reads as under:-
"6. Restrictions on the holding of driving licences.- (1) No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving licence except a learner's licence or a driving licence issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 or a document authorizing, in accordance with the rules made under Section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle."
6. The language of the aforesaid Section is clear that a person can have only one driving licence at one point of time. If any addition is to be made, the same has to be endorsed in the same driving licence. Sunil 2014.03.21 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.6997 of 2011 (O&M) with -4- FAO No.7257 of 2011 (O&M)
7. Why a person would have two driving licences. The reason is obvious - to hood-wink the law enforcement agencies. A particular driving licence is to be used in a particular set of circumstances as per convenience of the user. In criminal proceedings a forged driving licence is handed over to the police, but in proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act, to avoid civil liability, another driving licence which is perhaps 'obtained' for that very purpose is tendered. The method adopted is too mischievous. The object is to deceive the Insurance Companies. Should the Tribunal or the Court become a party to such frauds by ignoring forgery and hold that at least one driving licence was genuine?
8. The answer must be 'no'. It was never the intention of the Legislature framing the law. While granting compensation, the Tribunal has to uphold the law. Anybody found to be tinkering with it has to be dealt with a strong hand. Such malpractices cannot and should not be tolerated. The fact remains that the driving licence which respondent No.1 was holding at the time of the fateful accident was a forged document. Merely because the appellant later on came up with another driving licence in his name, does not mean that at the time of the accident, respondent No.1 was holding an effective driving licence.
9. Interestingly the owner of the vehicle is the father of respondent no.1. It cannot be assumed that he did not know that the licence of his son was forged. A particular driving licence was used and the owner-driver cannot avoid their liability by introducing another driving licence. There is no reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. The insurance company is absolved of its liability of payment of compensation. The amount that has been paid by insurance company can be recovered from respondent nos.1 & 2 by filing an Sunil 2014.03.21 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.6997 of 2011 (O&M) with -5- FAO No.7257 of 2011 (O&M) execution petition. Since, there was a stay with respect to 50% of the awarded amount, it is ordered that the balance amount shall be paid directly to the claimants by respondent nos.1 & 2 along with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
Keeping in this view, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed while the appeal filed by appellant Sirdari is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE March 14, 2014 sunil Sunil 2014.03.21 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document