Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jaswinder Singh vs Nirmala Devi And Others on 9 March, 2026
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
FAO(MVA) No.133 of 2013
Reserved on: 02.03.2026
Date of decision: 09.03.2026
.
_______________________________________________________
Jaswinder Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Nirmala Devi and others
...Respondents
________________________________________________________
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
rt ____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi & Ms. Divya Rajta, Advocates, respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sambhav Bhasin and Ms.Shruti Dubey, Advocates, for respondent No.6.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/ Owner (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "MV Act"), against the award dated 29.09.2012, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in MAC Petition No.87-MAC/2 of 2008, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned award.
2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to present appeal, are that the petitioners/respondents No.1 to 5 herein (hereinafter referred to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS2 ( 2026:HHC:6247 ) as the petitioners) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of Shri Som Nath, who was husband of petitioner .
No.1, father of petitioners No.2 to 4 and son of petitioner No.5. It was averred by the petitioners that on 26.09.2008, Som Nath was travlling as pillion rider on Motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-18A-2251, of being driven by one Ranjeet Singh. When they reached near Petrol Pump at Kala Amb, a Tractor bearing registration No.HR-04B-3540 came from the opposite direction, being driven in rash and negligent rt manner by its driver (proforma respondent No.7 herein) and struck against Som Nath, as a result of which, he suffered serious injuries and died on the way of hospital.
3. As per the petitioners, at the time of his death, the deceased was 44 years old and he was working as a Fitter in IPH Department and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. He was also earning Rs.3,000/- per month from the agriculture. The offending vehicle was owned by Jaswinder Singh (appellant herein) and it was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.6 herein). It was also averred that the deceased was the only earning member in the family. Hence, the petitioners sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-.
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS3 ( 2026:HHC:6247 )
4. The owner as well as driver of the offending vehicle (appellant and proforma respondent No.7 herein) in their joint reply to the claim petition raised preliminary objection regarding non-joinder of .
necessary parties. On merits, it has been averred that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of motorcycle and the deceased had never struck against the of Tractor. They further averred that the Tractor in question was duly insured with National Insurance Company/respondent No.6 herein.
5. In the reply filed by National Insurance Company/ rt respondent No.6 herein , preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability, driver of the Tractor was not having a valid and effective driving licence, the Tractor was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy. On merits, it was denied that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month from agricultural work and that there was longevity in the family of the deceased.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 21.10.2009:-
"1. Whether Som Nath died on account of rash or negligent driving of tractor HR-04B-3540 by respondent No.3- Ram Babu Paswan alias Lal Babu, as alleged? OPP
2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurance company of Motorcycle No.HP-18A-2251, as alleged? OPR ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS 4 ( 2026:HHC:6247 )
4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR-2
5. Whether the driver of the tractor in question did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, as alleged? OPR-2 .
6. Whether the tractor in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-2
7. Relief."
After the parties led their evidence, the claim petition was allowed and respondents No.1 and 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay of compensation of Rs.18,19,240/- alongwith interest and it was further held that the award shall be satisfied by the insurer (respondent No.6 rt herein) in the first instance and thereafter, it shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner (appellant herein) as well as the driver (respondent No.7 herein) by filing execution petition.
7. Feeling aggrieved/dissatisfied, the appellant/ owner of the Tractor in question preferred the instant appeal against award dated 29.09.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal below, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 and learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6 and also carefully examined the entire record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner contended that the Tribunal below has illegally fastened the liability on the appellant/owner of the Tractor. He further contended that the appellant ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS 5 ( 2026:HHC:6247 ) had taken all care and caution at the time of employing respondent No.7 as driver. He also contended that the owner was not expected to verify the licence from the licence issuing authority as to whether the .
driving licence possessed by the driver was fake or not. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the case laws i.e. Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) Versus National Insurance Company of Ltd. & ors., Civil Appeal Nos.12442-12446 of 2024, decided on October 8, 2025, Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 49, Ram Chandra Singh Vs. rt Rajaram and others (2018) 8 SCC 799.
10. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6/ Insurance Company vehemently contended that since it has been proved on record that the driving licence possessed by the driver was not genuine, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner.
11. From the close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it has become clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. Perusal of licence verification report Ext.RX-1, produced by the Insurance Company, reveals that driving license No.11379/MTR/2008, purported to have been issued by the Licencing Authority, Mathura, was not issued from the said office. The Insurance Company had examined on commission ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS 6 ( 2026:HHC:6247 ) Sh.S.K.Singh, Licence Clerk, A.R.T.O Office Mathura, who stated that the driving licence verification report, Ext.RX-1 was issued from their office. He further stated that the said driving licence was not issued .
from their office because computerized form of licences were not issued from their office for want of computer system. The driver did not lead any evidence to show that the driving licence produced by him of was genuine. Therefore, it has been proved on record that the driver of the Tractor bearing registration No.HR-04B-3540 was not holding a valid driving licence.
rt
12. Now, the next question, which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the insurance company can be held liable when it has been proved on record that the driving license possessed by the driver was proved to be a fake license. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that the insurance company cannot absolve its liability unless it is established that the insured was guilty of breach of the policy conditions. The insurer must prove that the insured was guilty of breach of policy condition, i.e., he was aware and had knowledge of the fact that the driver engaged by him to drive the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and despite having this knowledge and despite such awareness, he had allowed such a driver to drive the vehicle.
13. In Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) Versus National ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS 7 ( 2026:HHC:6247 ) Insurance Company Ltd. & ors., Civil Appeal Nos.12442-12446 of 2024, decided on October 8, 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if the licence is fake, the insurance company is liable to .
pay compensation, if it fails to prove that the insured had deliberately committed breach in entrusting the vehicle to a driver who had a fake licence. The Insurance Company must establish that the breach was on of the part of the insured as the owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether rt the licence is fake or not. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"7. Lehru (supra) was a case in which though an allegation of the driving licence produced being fake was raised, the same was not proved before the Tribunal. The trite law was noticed that even if the licence is fake, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if they fail to prove that the insured had deliberately committed breach in entrusting the vehicle to a driver who had a fake licence. New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla wherein despite finding breach, the insurer was directed to pay compensation to the third parties, but, enabled recovery from the insured was noticed. It was categorically held that whether the insured would be protected by such an order was left open to be considered on the facts of each case. It was held in Lehru and Ors.(supra) that: -
"18......we are thus in agreement with what is laid down in the 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."
12. We do not find any substance in the argument of the respondent-insurer that a collusion can be validly inferred since the driving licence was produced by the owner. In fact, the owner of the truck is not an individual and is a company, as we see from the cause title. Undisputedly, even if the tort- feasor is the driver, the liability for any negligence of the driver rests on the owner of the vehicle, vicariously. There can be no suspicion raised merely ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS 8 ( 2026:HHC:6247 ) because the owner had produced the driving licence before Court. It only indicates that the owner had been diligent enough to procure the driving licence from the driver and produce it before the Tribunal, so as to validly raise a case for indemnification by the insurer.
.
16. As has been noticed in Geeta Devi (supra) there is no pleading or substantiation of due diligence having not been employed at the time of entrustment. R1W1 was the Advertising In-charge of the appellant who produced the licence before the Court as Exhibit R1W1/1. The certificate issued by the RTO Gurdaspur was also marked as R1 which we referred to from the additional documents. In cross examination, there was only a bland suggestion made to the witness that the Directors of R2 knew that R1 possessed only a fake driving licence. There were of no questions put to the witness, who was examined on behalf of the owner, as to the actual entrustment of the vehicle or whether R1 was employed regularly or temporarily and when such employment commenced, which are crucial insofar as proving or disproving due diligence by the owner at the time of engagement of the driver and the entrustment of the vehicle. As has been rt rightly held by the precedents above noticed, the owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether the licence is fake or not."
14. In Nirmala Kothari's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:-
"10. While the insurer can certainly take the defence that the licence of the driver of the car at the time of accident was invalid/fake however the onus of proving that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness of the licence or was guilty of willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance lies on the insurer.
11. The view taken by the National Commission that the law as settled in the Pepsu case is not applicable in the present matter as it related to third-party claim is erroneous. It has been categorically held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors.(SCC pp.341, para 110) ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS 9 ( 2026:HHC:6247 ) "110. (iii)...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 licenced driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time."
12. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence of unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the Insurance Company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to rt place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the Insurance Company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable."
15. In Ram Chandra Singh's case (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-11 of the judgment, which read as under:-
"11. Suffice it to observe that it is well established that if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then the insurer would stand absolved. However, the mere fact that the driving licence is fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer. Indubitably, the High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the driving licence was found to be fake, but that concession by itself was not sufficient to absolve the insurer."
16. Therefore, in view of the law cited hereinabove, it has become clear that the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless it is proved that the owner/insured was aware or had knowledge of the fact that the driving licence was fake and still ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS 10 ( 2026:HHC:6247 ) permitted that person to drive the vehicle. In the instant case, the owner of the offending vehicle while stepping into the witness box as RW-1, tendered in evidence his affidavit Ext. RW1/A, wherein he had .
specifically stated that before he engaged respondent No.3 (respondent No.7 herein) as driver in his vehicle, he had seen him driving the tractor and also seen his driving licence. He was cross-
of examined at length, but nothing favourable could be elicited from his cross-examination with respect to the fact that despite having knowledge that the driver engaged by him did not possess a valid and rt effective driving licence, he had allowed him to drive the vehicle. Since it has come on record that the owner of the offending vehicle has satisfied himself that the driver was having a driving licence before engaging him and no evidence to the contrary has been led by the insurance company that the owner was aware of the fact that the driving licence was fake, still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, the insurance company cannot be absolved from the liability to pay compensation to the petitioners.
17. Consequently, in view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appeal filed by the appellant/owner is allowed. The amount of compensation shall now be paid by respondent No.6/insurance company, instead of appellant-
Jaswinder Singh and respondent No.7-Ram Babur Paswan jointly and ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS 11 ( 2026:HHC:6247 ) severally, who are now exonerated from paying the amount of compensation to the petitioners. However, the findings of the learned Tribunal below with respect to the amount of compensation awarded .
by the learned Tribunal below in favour of the petitioners shall remain the same. The amount deposited in this Court by the appellant/owner, if not withdrawn by the petitioners, shall be returned to him along with of interest, if any, forthwith upon due verification. If the aforesaid amount has been withdrawn by the petitioners, necessary adjustment(s) will be made by the Insurance Company, including return of such amount to rt the appellant.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge March 09, 2026 (V. Himalvi) ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:33:30 :::CIS