Delhi High Court
D.T.C. vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. on 5 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 29th February, 2012
Pronounced on: 5th March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 560/2009
D.T.C. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.P.Gupta, Advocate
versus
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur Advocate
Mr.Amit Gaur Advocate Mr.
Shashank Sharma, Advocates
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant Delhi Transport Corporation, a Public Sector
Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'DTC')
aggrieved by the grant of recovery rights in respect of
compensation of `56,500/- awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the second
Respondent, has approached this Court by way of this Appeal.
2. The question for determination is whether Om Prakash (the
third Respondent), the Appellant's driver, whose driving licence
expired on 23.01.2003 can be said to be in possession of a valid
driving licence on the date of the accident which took place on
the next day i.e. 24.01.2003 because of the proviso to Section
14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act).
3. Section 14 talks about the currency of the licence to drive motor
vehicles. It is extracted hereunder:-
"14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.
(1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject
to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a
period of six months from the date of issue of the licence.
(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act
shall,-
(a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be
effective for a period of three years:
[Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport
vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature
be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof
shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes
one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and]
(b) in the case of any other licence,-
(i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or
on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of 3[fifty
years] on the date of issue or, as the case may be,
renewal thereof,-
(A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date
of such issue or renewal; or
(B) until the date on which such person attains the age of
3[fifty years],
whichever is earlier;
(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has
attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as
the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on
payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of
five years from the date of such issue or renewal:]
Provided that every driving licence shall,
notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section
continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from
such expiry." (emphasis supplied).
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that since
the proviso to Section 14 of the Act makes the driving licence
effective for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, the
licence shall be deemed to be valid and it shall be presumed that
the driver was duly licensed in terms of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii)
of the Act.
5. On the other hand, it is urged by learned counsel for the second
Respondent, the Insurer that the driving licence becomes
effective with retrospective effect only if it is renewed within a
period of 30 days. Since in this case, the driving licence was
renewed only on 12.04.2004, the driving licence which expired
on 23.01.2003 shall not be treated to be effective on 24.01.2003
i.e. the date of the accident.
6. Chapter II of the Act deals with the necessity and competence
of obtaining licence, the responsibilities of the owner of the
motor vehicles, currency, renewal, revocation, etc. of the
driving licence. Section 14 of the Act talks about the currency
and Section 15 of the Act deals with the renewal of the driving
licences. Proviso to Section 14 clearly stipulates that
notwithstanding its expiry, the driving licence shall be valid for
a period of 30 days. Renewal of the driving licence is dealt with
in Section 15 which talks about fee payable when the
application is made within 30 days, when the application is
made after a period of 30 days and when the application is made
after a period of five years.
7. What would happen if a person is incapacitated before the
expiry of 30 days and may not be entitled to renewal of driving
licence. A person may die within those 30 days and thus, may
not be in a position to apply for renewal of the driving licence.
Since no condition has been attached to the proviso, I am of the
view that a driving licence remains effective and valid for a
period of 30 days after its expiry. I am supported in this view
by the report of the Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297.
In para 45 of the report it was held as under:-
"45. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily
renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules
framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the
interregnum period, namely, when the accident took
place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not
have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed
period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the
same automatically without undergoing any further test
or without having been declared unqualified therefore,
Proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal term
states that the licence remains valid for a period of
thirty days from the day of its expiry." (emphasis
supplied)
8. Thus, I am convinced that the driving licence of the third
Respondent (the driver) was valid on 24.01.2003.
Consequently, there was no violation of the terms of the policy
entitling the second Respondent National Insurance Company
Limited to avoid indemnification of the Insured, the Appellant.
9. The Claims Tribunal erred in granting recovery rights against
the Appellant, the Insured of the vehicle.
10. The impugned order in so far as it grants recovery right to the
second Respondent against the Appellant is set aside.
11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 05, 2012
vk
