Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Virender Kaur & Ors on 17 January, 2020
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17.01.2020.
+ MAC.APP. 18/2020
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv.
versus
VIRENDER KAUR & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Garg, Adv., for the Caveator.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
Caveat/ 1255/2019
1. Since the learned counsel named above enters appearance on behalf of
the caveator, caveat stands discharged.
2. The application stands disposed-off.
CM APPL. 1798/2020(Exemption)
3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
4. The application stands disposed-off.
CM APPL. 1799/2020 (for delay)
5. This application seeks condonation of delay of 11 days in filing of the
appeal.
6. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned.
7. The appeal is taken on record.
8. The application stands disposed-off.
MAC.APP. 18/2020
9. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 02.09.2019
passed by the learned MACT in Petition No. 5446/2016, on the ground that
the right of recovery has not been granted against the owner of the vehicle.
The issue has been dealt with by the learned Tribunal as under:-
"22. Respondent no.2 stated in his written statement that he had
hired the respondent no.l after checking his driving skills and
driving licence and the respondent no.l was working with
respondent no.2 for the last three years and respondent no.l
showed his driving licence at the time of employment. In the case
of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru & Others,
Civil Appeal no. 1959 of 2003 decided by Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 28.02.2003 it was held as under:
"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 RTO's, 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)(1)(a)(ii). The
Insurance Company would not then be absolved 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 Skandm's
Sohan Lai Passi's and Kamla's case. We are in full
agreement with the viewj' expressed therein and see no
reason to take a different view."
23. In view of the above, respondent no.2 has been able to prove
his contention. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was
insured with the respondent no.3 on the date of accident and
accordingly respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners.
10. What emanates from above is that the test laid down by the Supreme
Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338, i.e.
firstly, the owner ought to have seen the driving licence of the prospective
driver and assured himself that of its facial validity and secondly, tested the
driving skills of the driver before employing him for the indemnification
against any third party liability under the insurance policy. As per the owner
of the vehicle, both the requirements in terms of Lehru (supra) were met.
11. In the circumstances, insurer would be liable to indemnify the
claimant.
12. The order does not call for any interference. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
JANUARY 17, 2020
kb
