Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"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 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 above 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 (Skiandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, (1987) 2 SCC 654, Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21, and New India Assurance Company v. Kamla, (2001) 4 SCC

x x x x x x x x x x

89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in Sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are 'goods carriage', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxi-cab', medium goods vehicle', "medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motor-cab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', "private service vehicle', 'semi-trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer', and "transport vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for 'motorcycle without gear', [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxi-cab', 'motor-cab' or 'omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence".

47. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenges the award on the ground that the driving licence of the driver was valid upto 24.09.2004, the accident took place on 02.11.2004 and it was renewed on 21.12.2004. It is thus urged that the owner was guilty of willful breach of the terms of policy and the Insurance Company was liable to be exonerated.

48. In support of its contention, the Insurance Company examined one Ramesh Dutt, its representative. Apart from proving the copy of the Insurance Policy Ex.R3W1/A, the witness tried to prove the Investigating Report given by one Om Prakash Kadiyan regarding driving licence of Pala Singh running into three pages Ex.R3W1/D1 to D3, the receipt of the Transport Department of NCT of Delhi Ex.R3W1/E and E1 to E2 and the report of the MLO office Ex.R3W1/F1 to F3. No witness from the Transport Department was summoned by the Appellant Insurance Company to prove that the driving licence alleged to be seized by the Investigating Officer was not valid. Of course, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle preferred not to contest the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, but at the same time, no effort was made to summon them to prove that there was a breach or in any case a willful breach of the terms of the policy as the owner allowed the driver Pala Singh to drive the vehicle knowing fully well that he was not in possession of a valid driving licence. No notice was issued to the owner to produce the driving licence of Pala Singh valid on the date of the accident.

63. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, a written statement was filed by Respondents No.2 and 3 (driver and owner of the vehicle) wherein they disputed the negligence on the part of the driver. It is important to note that the First Respondent (the Claimant) before the Claims Tribunal filed a certified copy of the cover note along with other documents, enclosed with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed against Rameshwar driver of the offending vehicle. A seizure memo of the driving licence number C08072002301424 valid for the period 01.09.2005 to 31.08.2008 along with the driving licence was also filed. A notice (Ex.R3W1/A) under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was served upon the owner (the third Respondent) and the driver (the second Respondent) to produce the driving licence in the Court. The said notice was duly proved by the Insurance Company by examining R3W1 K.G.Malhotra, Assistant Manager of the Appellant. He deposed that the driving licence was issued to the driver on 10.11.1984 and the licence was valid upto 02.07.2005. Thereafter, it was renewed only on 01.09.2005 i.e. there was a gap of about 59 days in renewing the licence. Initially, adjournment was sought for cross- examination of this witness on behalf of the Second and the third Respondents. However, on the next date i.e. on 29.05.2007 nobody appeared on their behalf and thus, the cross- examination was recorded as „NIL‟. Similarly, R3W2 Ramesh Kumar, LDC from Transport Authority, Ashok Vihar, deposed that as per the report Ex.R3W2/A the driving licence was renewed from 03.07.2002 to 02.07.2005 and thereafter w.e.f. 01.09.2005 to 31.08.2008. Admittedly, the driver and owner have preferred not to cross-examine these two witnesses produced by the Insurance Company. (they failed to produce the driving licence also).