Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilpreet Singh & Anr vs United India Insurance Co Ltd on 12 September, 2014
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.M. NOS.20752-53 CII OF 2014 &
F.A.O. NO.7784 OF 2014 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
Dilpreet Singh and another
.....Appellants
VERSUS
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Goryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. K. S. Boparai, Advocate,
for the appellants.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, which was involved in the accident, which led to death of Kamalpreet Singh.
It is the contention of counsel for the appellants that the liability has been fastened upon the appellants by the Tribunal jointly and severally alongwith Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has been given the right to recover the awarded amount from them on the ground that appellant No.1, Dilpreet Singh, did not have a valid driving licence to drive in India. He contends that appellant No.1 is holding a driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Kuebec, Canada, which is an international driving licence and, therefore, is valid all over the world, RAKESH KHURMI 2014.09.16 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.M. NOS.20752-53 CII OF 2014 & F.A.O. NO.7784 OF 2014 :{ 2 }:
including the other Common Wealth Countries. He further contends that the liability is of the Insurance Company, especially when it comes to the owner and driver of the vehicle as it is not expected of the owner of the vehicle to go to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the Licensing Authority. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company, 2014 (1) SCC (L&S) 750.
Counsel for the appellants very fairly states that there is no endorsement on the licence held by appellant No.1 by any of the Transport Authority of India, which is the requirement of the statute and the rules. He, however, contends that the appellants cannot be denied the benefits of the insurance policy, which fact is admitted by the respondent-Company. Assertion has also been made that the Insurance Company has not proved the report of the District Transport Officer but has only produced the same before the Tribunal. Accordingly, prayer has been made for setting-aside the award.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellants but am unable to accept the same in the light of the fact that the driving licence held by appellant No.1 was not endorsed by any competent Licensing authority of India, which is the requirement of the statute i.e. the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the driving licence held by the driver on the date of accident cannot be said to be a valid one. Merely because appellant No.1 was holding an international driving licence, which is valid upto 20.02.2016, would not be a ground for declaring it valid in India without an endorsement of any RAKESH KHURMI 2014.09.16 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.M. NOS.20752-53 CII OF 2014 & F.A.O. NO.7784 OF 2014 :{ 3 }:
competent authority, entitling him to drive the vehicle in India.
As regards the contention of counsel for the appellants that Exhibit R2-report of the District Transport Officer has not been proved before the Tribunal, the same cannot be accepted as the report of the said Officer is not disputed and is Exhibit R-2 on the record. As per the report of the District Transport Officer, Exhibit R-2, the holder of the driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Kuebec, Canada, was not authorized to drive any vehicle in India.
The judgement on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants i.e. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the issue involved in the said case was totally different from one as contended and raised by counsel for the appellants in the present appeal.
Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed in limine.
In the light of the above order, the applications for condonation of delay of 77 days in filing the appeal as also for stay stand dismissed.
September 12, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
khurmi JUDGE
RAKESH KHURMI
2014.09.16 09:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document